|
Which horse film is your favorite? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Black Beauty |
|
2 | 1.06% |
| A Talking Pony!?! |
|
4 | 2.13% |
| Mr. Hands 2x Apple Flavor |
|
117 | 62.23% |
| War Horse |
|
11 | 5.85% |
| Mr. Hands |
|
54 | 28.72% |
| Total: | 188 votes | ||
|
Discendo Vox posted:Your claim using that bad source of "data" (a twitter account that tells you what you want, based on MSPaint drawings on screenshots of badly attributed powerpoint slides) still relies on pretending the actual FDA panel did not consist of actual qualified subject experts. Listening to an epidemiologist about boosters is “bad data”? Sounds like you are reaching. Israel opened up their boosters to all based on data from their experts. Is Israel wrong here? Why are politicians and the wealthy allowed to get a booster but the FDA advisory board says the peasants are not? Fritz the Horse posted:Then consider the policy aspects and how CDC, FDA, etc function in applying them. The CDC recommends folks not wear an N95 mask for an airborne disease and dropped the mask mandate altogether in May right when delta, a known variant that was ravaging India, was gaining a foothold in the states. The CDC also recommends unvaccinated children go to crowded schools. I have considered what I need to of the policies of the CDC. They do not have my family’s health in mind. Edit: 
virtualboyCOLOR fucked around with this message at 07:33 on Sep 19, 2021 |
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 07:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:35 |
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:Why are politicians and the wealthy allowed to get a booster but the FDA advisory board says the peasants are not? What?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 07:24
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:What? Greg Abbott, under the age of 65, was able to get a booster. If it is good enough for a politician, it should be good enough for my family. Edit: We are arguing in circles so I’m going to bow out. If no one wants to address why Israel, pfizer, and epidemiologists are wrong to allow boosters or why it’s ok for the rich and powerful to get a booster but the regular citizens can not then we are at an impasse. virtualboyCOLOR fucked around with this message at 07:31 on Sep 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 07:25
|
|
|
Respiratory complications are a common comorbidity with spinal cord injuries. Greg Abbott is a paraplegic. It's very likely he's in the high risk category the FDA agrees should get a booster.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 07:34
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:We are arguing in circles so I’m going to bow out. If no one wants to address why Israel, pfizer, and epidemiologists are wrong to allow boosters or why it’s ok for the rich and powerful to get a booster but the regular citizens can not then we are at an impasse. You have in no way substantiated the argument that the FDA is fine with boosters for the rich and powerful but not for regular citizens. This is an argument you made up because it aligns with your ideology and perceptions. I am a regular citizen and not wealthy or politically connected. I got a booster because my doctor recommended it due to my being on a ventilator and almost dying in January 2020. You are applying a class analysis to booster distribution when all the relevant sources are talking about age, underlying conditions, and other medically relevant aspects. There are a bunch of posters on this very website who are posting about skirting FDA recommendations to get boosters without authorization. Are they wealthy or politicians? Fritz the Horse fucked around with this message at 07:40 on Sep 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 07:38
|
|
|
C411 posted:Respiratory complications are a common comorbidity with spinal cord injuries. Greg Abbott is a paraplegic. It's very likely he's in the high risk category the FDA agrees should get a booster. This was not the case at the time he received his booster, not that that materially changes the point of discussion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 07:38
|
|
|
Suck Moredickis posted:I'm not even sure we know that the CDC was wrong. As far as I'm aware, we're still not sure the degree to which vaccinated people transmit the virus as opposed to unvaccinated. As we've seen, the delta variant has ripped through the unvaccinated and it isn't clear how much of that spread is due to the vaxxed vs the unvaxxed. N95s are certainly better for personal protection than a cloth mask, but if you're already vaccinated, an N95 may only offer you an insignificant amount of additional protection. The CDC was absolutely wrong. When they eliminated the mask requirement for vaccinated people, they claimed that vaccinated people were unlikely to transmit (and Walensky straight-up said that they "don't transmit"). They cited several papers to back that up, but none of them actually looked at the degree to which vaccinated people were contagious. At the time there was only a single preprint that directly addressed breakthrough transmissions, and it suggested that breakthrough cases likely had roughly half the transmission risk on unvaccinated cases, which is something but not super great for a virus as contagious as SARS-CoV-2. Unfortunately, this is a common problem with Walensky. Just two weeks ago she claimed that two studies published in the CDC's MMWR showed that "there was not increased disease severity in children" with Delta and "Instead, more children have COVID-19 because there is more disease in the community". However, neither of the two analyses were designed to distinguish the contributions of increased severity and increased community spread, and in fact the authors of both explicitly say that they cannot determine which is correct. If I had worked on those papers I would have been pissed at her spin. (The vaccination paper also has some serious issues with potential confounding that make it impossible to determine the actual contribution of vaccines, but that's a separate issue) Stickman fucked around with this message at 07:44 on Sep 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 07:41
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:You have in no way substantiated the argument that the FDA is fine with boosters for the rich and powerful but not for regular citizens. This is an argument you made up because it aligns with your ideology and perceptions. Fair enough. Sorry you had to go through that. Sounds like it would be beneficial for everyone to get a booster then? Otherwise folks will just get their “first” shot a second time which will be a real record keeping issue when boosters are approved down the line anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 07:41
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:Sounds like it would be beneficial for everyone to get a booster then?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 07:46
|
|
|
Feigl-Ding is an attention seeker who is more interested in sensationalism and online fame than accuracy. He isn’t always wrong but his reliability is rather poor, especially for an epidemiologist. Indeed, he has been publicly called out by his colleagues for things such as breathlessly providing premature commentary on and lending his authority to pre-prints and signal boosting misinformation. I don’t care if people want to post his tweets in this thread, but any lurkers coming across one should be extremely skeptical of anything he says.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 08:08
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:Feigl-Ding is an attention seeker who is more interested in sensationalism and online fame than accuracy. He isn’t always wrong but his reliability is rather poor, especially for an epidemiologist. Indeed, he has been publicly called out by his colleagues for things such as breathlessly providing premature commentary on and lending his authority to pre-prints and signal boosting misinformation. What has he been wrong about?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 08:19
|
|
|
edit: I really wish folks might discuss the actual data from Israel instead of bickering about Twitter personalities. Feigl-Ding is a complicated and interesting personality in terms of COVID information. It's not that he's necessarily wrong, but the reason he's a minor Twitter celebrity is because he consistently (some would say deliberately) has extreme alarmist takes on the pandemic. Yes, he's an epidemiologist. But his expertise is in how nutrition can cause disease. He's an expert in things like how poor nutrition causes obesity and diabetes, not in the epidemiology of infectious disease like our current viral pandemic. Again, it's not that he's necessarily always wrong. But he's a Twitter personality because he has scorching hot extreme takes on COVID science when he is not an infectious disease expert. Fritz the Horse fucked around with this message at 09:14 on Sep 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 09:10
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:edit: I really wish folks might discuss the actual data from Israel instead of bickering about Twitter personalities. In the other other COVID thread QuarkJets pointed out that Israel now has ~1500 severe cases <60 if you add in the August/September data. Hopefully they'll update their waning analysis so we can get an actual estimate for <60 + nail down >60. Same for boosters! QuarkJets posted:With error bars like those I don't think that you can make any serious conclusions Stickman posted:Okay, that makes more sense. Not being able to make conclusions about waning immunity in <60 was exactly my point - the waning immunity pre-print article was presumably limited to data available at submission, so it's just Delta cases through July 31st. The data you linked shows that there's more available now that Israel's been failing to contain Delta, so hopefully they'll release updated analyses soon. The analysis in the linked post needs a mountain of salt, though, because it doesn't have the ability to adjust for anything. The published booster analysis adjusts for finer age categories, demographics, date of second dose, and week of positive test (to account for massive variation in infection risk over the study). Stickman fucked around with this message at 10:07 on Sep 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 10:04
|
|
|
The UK does do regular updates of their data to be fair. The tracking studies that get released seem more comprehensive than Israel's.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 10:20
|
|
|
Feingl-Ding’s problem isn’t that he’s alarmist. It’s that he fires from the hip. He links to a lot of interesting stuff, but you can’t trust his interpretation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 10:38
|
|
|
Stickman posted:In the other other COVID thread QuarkJets pointed out that Israel now has ~1500 severe cases <60 if you add in the August/September data. Hopefully they'll update their waning analysis so we can get an actual estimate for <60 + nail down >60. Same for boosters! Thanks this is helpful. It's late and I'm tired so I'll give it a look tomorrow and offer my 2c for whatever it's worth. To get on my soapbox again a bit: a major component of good science is admitting you were wrong when new data emerge. I'm not saying my earlier analysis of the Israeli data was wrong, but I'm happy to re-evaluate with what Stickman has linked. I strongly invite other posters to use the framework I posted and evaluate the data from Israel themselves. A recurring theme I see from some posters here is working backwards from a conclusion. E.g. "everyone should get boosters right away" and then going to great lengths to find data and policy options that support that conclusion. I understand that my approach might be unsatisfactory to some but that's how actual science works: it is cold and calculating and addresses only the data presented. This is in part why folks distrust CDC recommendations: the CDC is adapting to the science as it evolves. They may well be wrong at any given time! But they are working from the best evidence they have at the time (and there is also the element of political pressure). If you want to know my own personal opinion, feel free to PM me and I am happy to share it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 10:50
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:Thanks this is helpful. It's late and I'm tired so I'll give it a look tomorrow and offer my 2c for whatever it's worth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 10:53
|
|
|
Charles 2 of Spain posted:Thanks your posts are good. Thanks! Likewise. If nothing else I hope my posting encourages folks to actually read some of the literature being discussed. Twitter dipshits and hot takes are not good sources. I certainly don't claim to have a perfectly accurate take on the literature. Part of why I'm pushing literature review is that it's a cooperative, group process-- the more of us that are reading the scientific literature the more likely we are to spot errors or interesting new things. If it's of any interest I can find a couple articles for folks to practice the framework I proposed earlier. This is utterly independent of political ideology. Being able to read and evaluate science is an important skill regardless of your ideology. I've tried to approach this whole thread purely from a scientific perspective. I am foremost a science educator IRL. Like I mentioned, if you give a poo poo about my own personal opinions just PM me and I'm happy to share. Fritz the Horse fucked around with this message at 11:11 on Sep 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 11:03
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:I understand that my approach might be unsatisfactory to some but that's how actual science works: it is cold and calculating and addresses only the data presented. I appreciate your post(s), and/but I wanted to share my additional pessimism on this last point. I have come to distrust the CDC, or at least treat it with more skepticism, throughout this pandemic, precisely because they do not seem to be working from the best evidence they have at any given time, but because they seem to be operating from a bank-shot theory of policy, where they make recommendations based on a headcanon of how the American people will react, and not to "the science qua science" (to the extent anything like that exists, which, I think we would disagree about that too). This was most infamously the case in the masking debacle (which frankly is ongoing, although it has improved of late), but it has been an issue at the CDC specifically for some time, as Michael Lewis describes in his newest book, which is a follow-on of The Fifth Risk that focuses on the politicization of the CDC and other health agencies. I would contrast this with past/longstanding CDC policy and recommendations, where to my knowledge they did not really try bank shots. For example, in the (recent!) past, the CDC recommended that all women of childbearing age refrain from drinking alcohol, period. I don't think that this was a bank shot; I think this was them saying "here is what the science says," and then other people — ordinary people, and political actors — deciding what to do with those recommendations. Meanwhile, the entire pandemic the CDC seems to have been trying to play 12-dimensional chess with "well, if we say the science is THIS, then people will do THAT, so we should instead say the science is [OTHER]". And that is what has made people like me lose trust in the CDC. Not just the scientific understanding evolving: but the bankshots making you feel like you're getting played. I would say this is also true in the booster scenario. There is an ethical altruistic case for not doing boosters related to global vaccine equity; there is a pragmatic, cold-eyed case related to reducing mutations globally too. When I listen to scientists talk amongst themselves on e.g. TWIV, they seem to be really professionally bought in to both of these, but in public, unwilling to make the same claims, and instead talking about the science not yet being in on preventing infection. And all of these things can be true! But the communication is so terrible that it generates the same distrust that makes the work of e.g. the CDC harder later on, so the CDC bankshots more, which accelerates the distrust. It's a doom loop and I don't know how we get out of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 11:12
|
|
|
[the science] and [how the science is communicated] are definitely separate issues and I think most governments and government agencies loving suck at the latter
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 11:15
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:[the science] and [how the science is communicated] are definitely separate issues and I think most governments and government agencies loving suck at the latter One of the big problems is that even the "OMG I freaking love science" dipshits are usually talking about [how the science is communicated], and actual [the science] is lonely nerds staying in the lab til 3am to calibrate the ultracentrifuge, or spending 3 months combing through 20GB of mass spec data, or simultaneously running 32 Western blots to get one single faint gray band that indicates expression of a particular boring protein in a boring signalling pathway. We live in a time where science as a practice is mostly boring and inscrutable and even fundamental scientific literacy is non-existent for probably 95% of the population. Do I have any solutions? Nah
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 11:22
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:fundamental scientific literacy is non-existent for probably 95% of the population. Do I have any solutions? Nah im just gonna keep repping my post on "how to read science literature for babbies" I do welcome edits or additions. Let me know. edit: "let's read some actual science" is baby steps but I'll be incredibly pleased if even a handful of goons take that up. Reading literature is a major part of my classes this fall in large part because there's so much bullshit out there about COVID it's now more important than ever to be able to navigate academic literature. especially during this pandemic having some basic proficiency in evaluating scientific publications is incredibly useful! Fritz the Horse fucked around with this message at 11:34 on Sep 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 11:25
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:We live in a time where science as a practice is mostly boring and inscrutable and even fundamental scientific literacy is non-existent for probably 95% of the population. Do I have any solutions? Nah
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 11:40
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:im just gonna keep repping my post on "how to read science literature for babbies" Maybe you need to put a walkthrough on YouTube. I mean I’ve followed your ‘how to’ (IMO) for a year now but as a layperson I am likely not the best judge of how well I’m actually doing, you know? Dunning-Kruger and all that. How do I ‘check my work’ as it were?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 14:02
|
|
|
I missed the discussion of state level actions earlier but wanted to mention that Maryland has already taken such actions that effectively expand the FDA's authorization beyond what was originally intended: https://twitter.com/WWFH_MD/status/1438506736843821059 In short the FDA has said that immunocompromised folks should get a 3rd shot so the state of Maryland has stated that every resident over 65 in group care settings should be considered immunocompromised. That sort of definitional fuckery is where states can act. So assuming that the FDA approves boosters exactly as the advisory committee recommended what you could see happen is a state say "anyone in a county with X amount of community spread is 'high risk' and eligible for a 6 month booster, oh look that's everyone in the state". The FDA could preempt that with an explicit list of what counts but that would be a massive pain in the rear end and there would be a huge battle over what is included or not. You kind of saw the FDA advisory committee acknowledge that sort of thing when the one member asked whether parents would be considered "high risk" or not and the other member punted saying that's a can of worms.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 14:16
|
|
|
Could the massive increase in antibodies actually make boosted vaccines close to sterilizing and be a useful tool for helping end transmission?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 14:25
|
|
|
whether or not you get a booster depends on how you assess the question. if you assess the question of whether or not to get a booster in terms of risk/reward, it makes sense to get one. there have been no reports of severe side-effects directly and solely related to the booster. all reports that i’ve seen indicate it potentially gives off the same side effects as the other two doses. therefore, the risk is basically nil. as for the reward, there are some reports indicating the booster improves your immunity. the science is still out here, but so far it suggests it could help. so in this risk/reward perspective, you have: near zero risk probably some reward with significant upside verdict: you get a booster if you assess the question of whether or not to get a booster from just looking at the results of these studies, then you would refuse a booster. again, the results so far are mixed. there is no consensus on the improved protection. there is no assessment of risk in this perspective, therefore the decision can only be based on what results you trust. choosing which results to follow is stupid and impossible outside of one set of results showing a bias or study error or something. if you’re of this mind, you’ll eventually come to the conclusion picking one set of results over another is foolish. you’ll then resign to waiting. given this, it’s easy to see why businessmen, politicians, gamblers, et al would get the booster. they constantly frame questions in term of risk/reward. it’s their job to do so. further, it’s easy to see why scientists would choose the second perspective. scientists want proven results in more controlled arenas. that’s how they do their job. at least that’s my 2c on the matter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 14:36
|
|
|
abelwingnut posted:whether or not you get a booster depends on how you assess the question. Great post. I think this sums up the argument nicely. There is a bit of nuance in that some folks will see what group of folks usually end up on top and will follow their lead, but that would distill this down to risk vs reward. Right now there hasn’t been any evidence of risk to getting a booster that isn’t already similar to getting the shot in general. I’m personally not looking to have my family and loved ones end up being a statistic that gets hand waved as “well it only impacts 4% of people”. I’ll go with the low risk / high reward option. Hell that is why I listened to the experts in the first place. But it was also why I ended up districting there CDC since they would constantly ignore the science or play games with the public on masks. Also I want to commend Fritz the Horse for the high effort babies first guide to reading scientific papers. I may not agree with Fritz’s conclusion but those are some good rear end posts. virtualboyCOLOR fucked around with this message at 15:06 on Sep 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 15:03
|
|
|
abelwingnut posted:whether or not you get a booster depends on how you assess the question. This is mostly correct but you're not taking into account the risk associated with uncertainty. Scientists aren't saying no because they're not doing a risk/reward, they're saying no because they think the risk of acting without more data is higher than the risk of waiting for more data (outside of the high risk groups). Something that keeps getting lost in this discussion that is an extremely important bit of nuance is that the decision is not to do 16+ boosters yet. The risk/reward analysis being done here isn't booster/no booster, it's booster now/wait for more data to confirm. Considering it's still going to be another month or two until most of the group not getting boosters would need one (thinking non-high-risk groups mostly wouldn't have gotten vaccinated until March and adding 8 months), there's still a window of time where waiting for more data carries very little risk.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 15:30
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:edit: I really wish folks might discuss the actual data from Israel instead of bickering about Twitter personalities. I didn't bicker nor did I ask about his personality. I asked what he has been wrong about. Every response to that question has boiled down to "well, ok, he's not wrong but I don't like his tone" and I guess that's enough of an answer for me. I personally think that alarmist, screaming from the rooftops rhetoric is what we need more of, not less of. We are about to go through another winter of hundreds of thousands of preventable death and I think it's pretty awful how calm and unconcerned everyone - especially the people who should be stopping it - is about that. empty whippet box fucked around with this message at 15:36 on Sep 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 15:33
|
|
|
empty whippet box posted:I didn't bicker nor did I ask about his personality. I asked what he has been wrong about. Every response to that question has boiled down to "well, ok, he's not wrong but I don't like his tone" and I guess that's enough of an answer for me. quote:Critics point to numerous problems. Not too long after his “holy mother of God” tweet, for example, Feigl-Ding took to Twitter to discuss a titillating but non-peer-reviewed paper that some readers interpreted as evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was engineered in a lab; once the authors retracted the pre-print, he deleted a series of tweets from the middle of the thread. In March, Feigl-Ding tweeted a CDC graph as evidence that young people were “just as likely to be hospitalized as older generations,” but failed to mention an important detail about the age ranges represented in the graph’s bars, which didn’t actually support that claim. In August, he tweeted his support for a proposition to allow people early access to a vaccine. After criticism from epidemiologists, bioethicists, doctors, and health policy experts, Feigl-Ding deleted a few tweets at the beginning of his thread, saying they were “confusing” and “murky.” (He also argued that his critics were “spreading misinformation about what they think I said.”) https://undark.org/2020/11/25/complicated-rise-of-eric-feigl-ding/
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 15:38
|
|
|
empty whippet box posted:
I want to echo this. There is nothing more frustrating and insulting than seeing unvaccinated little ones forced back into cramp classrooms with an airborne disease while simultaneously being told that anyone who objects to the CDC’s less than scientific recommendations is being hysterical. These aren’t statistic, these are loving children forced to be slaughtered and maimed for no good reason. More caution should be warranted, not less. vvvv deaths are ALSO preventable by reducing transmission vectors AKA cramped classrooms with poor ventilation. Also deaths aren’t the only thing. Covid destroys the brain, heart, kidneys, etc and that may not kill you but will cause life long disabilities. virtualboyCOLOR fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Sep 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 15:40
|
|
|
The deaths are preventable if folks get the free vaccine. I sure wish they'd just do that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 15:45
|
|
|
quote:
This reads like the author doesn’t understand how Twitter threads work. Understandable mistake from those who are unfamiliar with technology and the online world. However that doesn’t mean Feigl-Ding is wrong. I’m glad there are epidemiologists, like Feigl-Ding, that do understand modern technology, social media protocols, and the science.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 15:46
|
|
|
How are u posted:The deaths are preventable if folks get the free vaccine. I sure wish they'd just do that. I know people like to fantasize that everyone dying deserves it and is a megachud who is willfully not getting the vaccine to spite you but that's not the case. If we had a government that gave a poo poo then this vaccine rollout could have been much faster and more effective. Why aren't we paying people to get the vaccine? Why aren't we requiring it for flying and every other drat thing we can think of, nationwide? Why are schools open for in-person learning before children can get the vaccine? Why are you willing to give our government such a gigantic pass about this, in favor of this personal responsibility poo poo that we normally laugh at chuds for? Even if our populace has turned out to be too god drat stupid to get the vaccine and that's the only problem, from where does that problem come? How did americans get this dumb again? The point of government is supposed to be to govern. They had a responsibility to prevent this and they didn't. They still aren't even trying. Do I laugh at chuds who shared tons of memes on facebook and then die horribly soon afterwards? Sure, yes I do. Do I then turn around and say 'well, our government did its best and all these deaths are fine!'? No. No I do not. Neither should you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 15:57
|
|
|
empty whippet box posted:I know people like to fantasize that everyone dying deserves it and is a megachud who is willfully not getting the vaccine to spite you but that's not the case. If we had a government that gave a poo poo then this vaccine rollout could have been much faster and more effective. Why aren't we paying people to get the vaccine? Why aren't we requiring it for flying and every other drat thing we can think of, nationwide? Why are schools open for in-person learning before children can get the vaccine? I think it can be both. We have most of those things in most of Canada, albeit in the process of being implemented in some cases (vaccines required for interprovincial public transportation, vaccine mandates for non-essential businesses, widespread mandates for employment, etc), and there's still plenty of people not getting vaccinated, and willfully spreading disinformation. While I think wishing death goes too far, and we should always be aware that some people aren't being vaccinated due to structural obstacles in their way or a bad history with the medical profession, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to look at an anti-vaxx protestor harassing people outside of a hospital and think "you poor soul, your government has really failed you." Ultimately, it doesn't really matter what governments do if people are going to be fundamentally selfish and individualistic. Both government action and people acknowledging their responsibility to society are going to be essential.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 16:37
|
|
|
enki42 posted:
The US should govern the people they have not the people they want. Likewise, posters criticizing the government’s inability to have an outcome better than the previous administration will do everything in their power to protect their family using the methods they have (second “first” doses) than the methods they want (lockdowns, contact tracing, mask mandates, stimulus checks, remote learning, rent / mortgage moratorium)
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 16:46
|
|
|
How are u posted:The deaths are preventable if folks get the free vaccine. I sure wish they'd just do that. While the vaccines are still doing a great job at preventing hospitalization and death, it is far from true that all those dying are unvaccinated. Some recent examples… https://twitter.com/alhospitals/status/1434983342970183681?s=21 Michigan  More than 20% of recent COVID cases, hospitalizations have been among Michigan’s fully vaccinated quote:A growing percentage of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations and deaths are among fully vaccinated individuals as the more infectious delta variant continues to spread. I think it’s also fair to say data on the ground does not reflect the CDC’s, Walensky’s, and Biden’s messaging, especially messaging from a couple months ago that suggested 99% of deaths were unvaccinated, going even further to call it a “Pandemic of the Unvaccinated.” They have, for obvious reasons, since eased off on that messaging since Delta has taken hold. The vaccines, at this present time, still greatly lower individuals’ risk for severe disease and death, but the Biden Administration deliberately ignored warning signs of the threat Delta posed because they had told people to take off their masks, it’s perfectly safe, and because it ran in the way of plans to fully reopen schools. Even if you consider severe disease spreading among the unvaccinated as “deserved,” it’s clear that breakthroughs are common and vaccinated people are spreading this virus, contributing to the thousands of deaths we’re seeing daily. A certain percentage of those deaths—we’ll never know but it’s not 1%—are fully vaccinated people who were likely given a false sense of security by the current administration. I was threadbanned from the other thread, but according to the OP it says I can post if I behave. I’m behaving. Gio fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Sep 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 16:47
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:You have in no way substantiated the argument that the FDA is fine with boosters for the rich and powerful but not for regular citizens. This is an argument you made up because it aligns with your ideology and perceptions. If you have a doctor you're rich. Hope this helps. Did you go to a non-emergent doctor's appointment at some point after your discharge? Did you get annual/semi-regular check-ups? If so, you're in the elite. wisconsingreg fucked around with this message at 16:51 on Sep 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 16:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:35 |
|
|
I'm not wishing death on anybody. At this point in the pandemic in the United States if somebody has not taken the vaccine (outside of an extremely small group of immunocompromised folks + kids young enough to not be eligible) then it is absolutely entirely your own choice. That's the facts, as far as I see them. I wish people would make better choices to save their own lives, and I'm glad that mandates and an increasing amount of 'sticks' present in society are slowly making a difference in the overall vaccine rate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 16:50
|
|