Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Government Response To The Coronavirus


Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, tonydead said:

Some werent very nice about it either. 

How dare poster at FBG question and make fun of the CDC! 

Meanwhile Anderson Cooper and a bunch of other "experts" on CNN last night questioning the CDC, claiming it's too soon and crying "what about the children?"  

Yeah.  We've long been at the point that you're praised if you say what we want and condemned if you don't.  CNN  has defended CDC fiercely for the past year.  When the CDC takes a stance they don't like--now it's ok to criticize them.  

I think if Trump came out and said the wrong things, the GOP would be quick to turn on him too.  You support the right things, you stay in favor with your side.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 29.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This is going to be a one off post because I don't want to get trolled or banned but if I were American, the context of Canada would be the biggest damning fact of how things have been handled in the

Australia has had months of little to no community spread and even then it was confined to one state. By and large Australians are running around doing the right thing, sport was and is still hap

I am confident we are going to hit >750K deaths.  I think it might be a million.  I don't post a ton but I'm an ER doc in a big city. This is by far the worse I've seen since the pandemic star

Just now, The Z Machine said:

I think the thing to remember is that the CDC shouldn't change course based on logic or "what makes sense". They change their positions based on the facts on the ground, statistical models, and confidence levels.  They will recommend the most conservative approach until they have high confidence that the detrimental effects of that change are low.  Yes, that means they are often advocating for restrictions that the populace doesn't want. 

This these shifts in recommendations have happened many times throughout the course of a worldwide pandemic of a novel virus.  Those changes really shouldn't surprise many.  Is Fauci al knowing? No. But I trust his opinion on infectious disease and epidemiology more than I trust Ron DeSantis.  Furthermore, Fauci doesn't set public policy, he gives recommendations. Elected or appointed government officials set the policy at the state, county, or municipal level. 

Factually speaking:  

If you can be vaccinated and spread the virus, then you should have to quarantine after being exposed.  The idea that you don't have to quarantine if you're exposed and vaccinated--but you still need to mask and distance to avoid exposure--that's not logic.  That's the facts don't add up.  

And as others have said.  They're not worried about you spreading it if you're vaccinated.  They weren't worried about it last week.  There's no way to police vaccinated vs non-vaccinated when it comes to mask wearing.  Wal-Mart isn't going to check everyone's card and have a line backed out the door.  Taking this stance now likely means masks go away completely.  And I'm very confident this is why they held out.  But just...say that.

As the CDC, You've changed positions a lot during this thing.  And public confidence isn't what it should be.  Perception is reality.  People don't think you know what the hell you're doing, then you basically don't.  You want people to believe in what you're doing and push through pandemic fatigue?  Treat them like they have a brain.  

People in here arguing "the experts are smarter than you," aren't going to get anywhere.  People have a right to question things and be included in a discussion that affects their every day lives.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, jm192 said:

There's no way to police vaccinated vs non-vaccinated when it comes to mask wearing.  Wal-Mart isn't going to check everyone's card and have a line backed out the door.  Taking this stance now likely means masks go away completely.  And I'm very confident this is why they held out.  But just...say that.

It’s the kind of thing that only works if you don’t say it too loudly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good posting all around.  Thanks.

15 minutes ago, jm192 said:

Wal-Mart isn't going to check everyone's card and have a line backed out the door.  Taking this stance now likely means masks go away completely.  And I'm very confident this is why they held out.  But just...say that.

You're likely correct.  Maybe some large retail chains will hold out if there's no public backlash simply due to CYA, but I agree, that's likely the course of events here.  However, government agencies cannot say things exactly as you've written above.  Just like politicians don't say things directly and dance around subjects, the official statements from government agencies cannot admit that they are acting paternalistic, even though it's obvious that they are acting paternalistic.  That's just not the way the world works (unfortunately).  The thinking is if they say they held out due to protecting the people that refuse a vaccine and not based on probable virus transmission vectors, then people will claim they are being paternalistic when they really are basing their recommendations on probable virus transmission vectors, and hence will ignore the CDC's recommendations.

13 minutes ago, jm192 said:

People in here arguing "the experts are smarter than you," aren't going to get anywhere.  People have a right to question things and be included in a discussion that affects their every day lives.

Yes, they absolutely do have a right to question things.  And that's the crux of what we're discussing.  When do we listen to the experts recommending conservative actions and when do we disregard those recommendations and set policy based not just on direct health outcomes and epidemiology?  I think denigrating these public servants, acting in their capacity to protect this nation's health is detrimental to a rational discussion of the public policy choices.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

Good posting all around.  Thanks.

You're likely correct.  Maybe some large retail chains will hold out if there's no public backlash simply due to CYA, but I agree, that's likely the course of events here.  However, government agencies cannot say things exactly as you've written above.  Just like politicians don't say things directly and dance around subjects, the official statements from government agencies cannot admit that they are acting paternalistic, even though it's obvious that they are acting paternalistic.  That's just not the way the world works (unfortunately).  The thinking is if they say they held out due to protecting the people that refuse a vaccine and not based on probable virus transmission vectors, then people will claim they are being paternalistic when they really are basing their recommendations on probable virus transmission vectors, and hence will ignore the CDC's recommendations.

Yes, they absolutely do have a right to question things.  And that's the crux of what we're discussing.  When do we listen to the experts recommending conservative actions and when do we disregard those recommendations and set policy based not just on direct health outcomes and epidemiology?  I think denigrating these public servants, acting in their capacity to protect this nation's health is detrimental to a rational discussion of the public policy choices.

Agreed.

But we also need to be able to say when they've gotten it wrong.  The CDC isn't a GOP or Democrat entity.  But for many on this board, it's seen as that.  Trump questioned the CDC and polarized them as anti-Republican.

So a lot of the Pro-Trump posters are going to slam it no matter what they do.  A lot of the Anti-Trump guys are going to defend them no matter what they do.  

And that behavior I think is equally detrimental.  The CDC isn't beyond reproach as some posters have implied.  They also haven't been wrong on every single decision as some have implied.  

When they reverse course--these dudes in here pounding their chests screaming "You maga dudes questioning the CDC think you're so smart, but you need to shut up and listen to the experts" doesn't make a lot of sense to me. 

 

Edited by jm192
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just want to add one more thing to the mask discussion.  I'm here in Yucatan, Mexico and the mask adoption practices are really phenomenal.  Even in 100+F heat, everyone is masked up in public, indoors and outdoors.  Servers in restaurants wear masks and face shields nearly 100% of the time.  It makes it hard for me to understand them as the sounds ae terribly muffled and not loud, but I am certain that it has contributed to lower infection rates.  In fact, despite the density of people being far higher here in a city in Mexico compared to back home in Baltimore, the daily case rates are lower per capita.  Vaccination has only reached about 10% of the population here (health care workers + elderly), so this country still has a long road ahead of them before they can go mask-free.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jm192 said:

And that behavior I think is equally detrimental.  The CDC isn't beyond reproach as some posters have implied.  They also haven't been wrong on every single decision as some have implied.  

Agreed 100%.  Early on the CDC shanked the kick over and over during the testing rollout debacle.  They couldn't get out of their own way.  The recommendation for no masks for the people early on was also not a good move.  They should rightfully be criticized for those actions.  Thus, early on trust was eroded considerably, and then it got political as you mention.  Really a shame for an organization that was thought to be at the forefront of a pandemic.

My stance is that we should not denigrate public servants acting in the best interests of the populace, nor should we ignore experts in various fields simply because they have changed their stances on various recommendations over time.  Those things really aren't going to help us in the next pandemic/crisis.

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, jm192 said:

I'm a hospitalist that has worked on the COVID unit in our hospital for this past year.  At one point we had a COVID census in the 50's.  I've intubated more COVID patients than I can count.  I've told families their loved one wasn't going to make it.  I've fought the fight.

I'm of the belief we have to let people make their own poor health decisions and deal with the consequences of those decisions.  People are allowed to drink to their heart's content.  Cirrhosis?  We'll take care of you.  Smoke until you get lung cancer and COPD?  We'll take care of you.  Want to refuse a vaccine and get COVID?  That's your choice too.  At some point, we've got to let the people that have done what they're asked to do move forward and take care of the ones who don't take care of themselves when they get sick.

The difference is those things don’t present a public health issue.   Cirrhosis and lung cancer doesn’t spread throughout the population.   So yeah, we treat infectious diseases differently and we should.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tonydead said:

Some werent very nice about it either. 

How dare poster at FBG question and make fun of the CDC! 

Meanwhile Anderson Cooper and a bunch of other "experts" on CNN last night questioning the CDC, claiming it's too soon and crying "what about the children?"  

271 children in the US have died from Covid.  271.  And because of that we have ruined 2 years of their lives.  Brilliant.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, jm192 said:

When they reverse course--these dudes in here pounding their chests screaming "You maga dudes questioning the CDC think you're so smart, but you need to shut up and listen to the experts" doesn't make a lot of sense to me. 

Did they reverse course?  Or has things changed enough where the guidance needs to change?  I mean what was right for vaccinated individuals is important, but the CDC guidance is for the overall public health not individuals.  To me the question isn't how effective the vaccine his, how much protection it offers "me", how much it protects those that interact with "me", but how many of "me" needed to be vaccinated before what I should be free to do can be extended.   

My guess is that the CDC would prefer to wait for more to be vaccinated "out of an abundance of caution" for much of the reasons posters made a few days ago (and because my experience observing such groups is that they are super cautious, but in the context of where we are that was becoming more and more counterproductive.  Specifically because fewer were listening anyway.  That it becomes about balancing their scientific responsibilities against political realities.  That is a shame but I think it is reality.

Oh, it could also be true that because they are super cautious by nature that they were sluggish in this updated guidance.  But I don't think it means they suddenly figured out what some have been saying all along.  Or anything like that.  It is just that their guidance is about 330 million people and not just "me". 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ekbeats said:

271 children in the US have died from Covid.  271.  And because of that we have ruined 2 years of their lives.  Brilliant.

In the annals of human child suffering....spending 13 months sitting at home wouldn't rank very high.  Let's all save the histronics for the women who birthed us, yes?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, jm192 said:

Factually speaking:  

If you can be vaccinated and spread the virus, then you should have to quarantine after being exposed.  The idea that you don't have to quarantine if you're exposed and vaccinated--but you still need to mask and distance to avoid exposure--that's not logic.  That's the facts don't add up.  

And as others have said.  They're not worried about you spreading it if you're vaccinated.  They weren't worried about it last week.  There's no way to police vaccinated vs non-vaccinated when it comes to mask wearing.  Wal-Mart isn't going to check everyone's card and have a line backed out the door.  Taking this stance now likely means masks go away completely.  And I'm very confident this is why they held out.  But just...say that.

As the CDC, You've changed positions a lot during this thing.  And public confidence isn't what it should be.  Perception is reality.  People don't think you know what the hell you're doing, then you basically don't.  You want people to believe in what you're doing and push through pandemic fatigue?  Treat them like they have a brain.  

People in here arguing "the experts are smarter than you," aren't going to get anywhere.  People have a right to question things and be included in a discussion that affects their every day lives.

This is exactly my thought.  What they fail to realize is that there is a Venn diagram of a big circle on it that is "ain't gunna wear no mask" and "ain't gunna get no shot" group.  It's been the obvious problem from the beginning.  Those people aren't going to be changed, so its pointless to try and form messaging around them.  Darwin will deal with those people.  It's time to move on.

Now, for me, I will wear a mask as long as my kids have to wear one.  I have one that's 4, one that's 9 and one getting his first shot today.  But as a matter of empathy and example, I plan on wearing mine until they don't have to.

Edited by The Commish
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Did they reverse course?  Or has things changed enough where the guidance needs to change?  I mean what was right for vaccinated individuals is important, but the CDC guidance is for the overall public health not individuals.  To me the question isn't how effective the vaccine his, how much protection it offers "me", how much it protects those that interact with "me", but how many of "me" needed to be vaccinated before what I should be free to do can be extended.   

My guess is that the CDC would prefer to wait for more to be vaccinated "out of an abundance of caution" for much of the reasons posters made a few days ago (and because my experience observing such groups is that they are super cautious, but in the context of where we are that was becoming more and more counterproductive.  Specifically because fewer were listening anyway.  That it becomes about balancing their scientific responsibilities against political realities.  That is a shame but I think it is reality.

Oh, it could also be true that because they are super cautious by nature that they were sluggish in this updated guidance.  But I don't think it means they suddenly figured out what some have been saying all along.  Or anything like that.  It is just that their guidance is about 330 million people and not just "me". 

Well said. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ekbeats said:

271 children in the US have died from Covid.  271.  And because of that we have ruined 2 years of their lives.  Brilliant.

Preliminary, not yet peer reviewed study on the impact of opening schools in Texas and Covid.

And I am one that thinks that while it has been a challenge (high school football games were forfeited - in Friday Night Lights Texas, one child at daycare (not a school) shut down an entire school system for 10 days etc.) ,  that reopening schools for in-person was largely successful and the right thing to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This debate reminds me of constant arguments that have been made about sports referees over the years. Referees aren’t perfect; sometimes they get calls wrong, and when they make an error on a key play at the end of a very close contest it can be especially aggravating. But whenever this occurs, there is always a contingent of folks who immediately claim, without evidence, that the fix is in, and that the bad call was deliberate. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Thunderlips said:

In the annals of human child suffering....spending 13 months sitting at home wouldn't rank very high.  Let's all save the histronics for the women who birthed us, yes?

Hey listen man. We are the new Greatest Generation, OK? All those zoom meetings I attended, that was my Normandy landing. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

The difference is those things don’t present a public health issue.   Cirrhosis and lung cancer doesn’t spread throughout the population.   So yeah, we treat infectious diseases differently and we should.

You're not following along.  Once the vaccine is available free for everyone jm192's analogies pass the logic test.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, timschochet said:

This debate reminds me of constant arguments that have been made about sports referees over the years. Referees aren’t perfect; sometimes they get calls wrong, and when they make an error on a key play at the end of a very close contest it can be especially aggravating. But whenever this occurs, there is always a contingent of folks who immediately claim, without evidence, that the fix is in, and that the bad call was deliberate. 

This analogy on the other hand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Hey listen man. We are the new Greatest Generation, OK? All those zoom meetings I attended, that was my Normandy landing. 

Yup.

Avoiding STDs in my younger days was my own personal Vietnam.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, The Commish said:

What they fail to realize is that there is a Venn diagram of a big circle on it that is "ain't gunna wear no mask" and "ain't gunna get no shot" group.

Selfish and unpatriotic. Unless one truly falls into the category where they medically can't do either, which is a tiny percentage of the population, an anti-mask anti-vax attitude because of politics is the epitome of deplorable and they should be rightfully shunned. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, The Commish said:

This is exactly my thought.  What they fail to realize is that there is a Venn diagram of a big circle on it that is "ain't gunna wear no mask" and "ain't gunna get no shot" group.  It's been the obvious problem from the beginning.  Those people aren't going to be changed, so its pointless to try and form messaging around them.  Darwin will deal with those people.  It's time to move on.

Now, for me, I will wear a mask as long as my kids have to wear one.  I have one that's 4, one that's 9 and one getting his first shot today.  But as a matter of empathy and example, I plan on wearing mine until they don't have to.

And you should.  Leadership, examples matter.  If mom or dad aren't wearing a mask, why the heck am I?Good on  you. 

I'm sure a lot of parents are going to just say "screw it, no masks for anyone."  I'm sure some have said that for a long time.

Edited by jm192
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

The difference is those things don’t present a public health issue.   Cirrhosis and lung cancer doesn’t spread throughout the population.   So yeah, we treat infectious diseases differently and we should.

I'm saying that if you choose not to get vaccinated and get covid, that's your choice to make.  It's only an issue for non-vaccinated persons at this point.  So if you get it and give it to another non-vaccinated person, they too made the choice to not be vaccinated and take on that risk.  It's not the entire village that's going to get sick anymore.

We should have treated this differently.  We have for a year plus now.  The people at risk are the people choosing not to take the vaccine.  So now we're back to, you wanna smoke?  Ok, but you may get lung cancer.  You wanna drink?  Ok, but you may get cirrhosis.  Wanna refuse the free vaccine?  Ok, but you may get covid.  Good news, we'll still take care of you in the ER's and hospitals.  

But I absolutely don't believe we need to indefinitely continue restrictions because a minority of the population is refusing to do what's right for themselves and--others making the same decision they are making.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jm192 said:

I'm saying that if you choose not to get vaccinated and get covid, that's your choice to make.  It's only an issue for non-vaccinated persons at this point.  So if you get it and give it to another non-vaccinated person, they too made the choice to not be vaccinated and take on that risk.  It's not the entire village that's going to get sick anymore.

We should have treated this differently.  We have for a year plus now.  The people at risk are the people choosing not to take the vaccine.  So now we're back to, you wanna smoke?  Ok, but you may get lung cancer.  You wanna drink?  Ok, but you may get cirrhosis.  Wanna refuse the free vaccine?  Ok, but you may get covid.  Good news, we'll still take care of you in the ER's and hospitals.  

But I absolutely don't believe we need to indefinitely continue restrictions because a minority of the population is refusing to do what's right for themselves and--others making the same decision they are making.

Sure, and I don’t think anyone here is advocating indefinitely continuing restrictions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Thunderlips said:
44 minutes ago, ekbeats said:

271 children in the US have died from Covid.  271.  And because of that we have ruined 2 years of their lives.  Brilliant.

In the annals of human child suffering....spending 13 months sitting at home wouldn't rank very high.  Let's all save the histronics for the women who birthed us, yes?

My kids lives weren't ruined by any stretch. They played more legos and got more parental love than they will ever get again. I am sure there are some kids who suffered greatly because of the school's shutting down, but there are millions of kids who lives suck regardless of the pandemic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sho nuff said:

Sure, and I don’t think anyone here is advocating indefinitely continuing restrictions.

Nah.

But I was responding to what sounds like an angry physician because "MAGA" dudes were refusing the vaccine and had the audacity to question the CDC.  At some point, gotta let people make their bad decisions and live with them.  You're right, earlier in this, that was not appropriate.  But we're to the point now--if you want the vaccine you can get it.  Time to live and let live.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, jm192 said:

But I absolutely don't believe we need to indefinitely continue restrictions because a minority of the population is refusing to do what's right for themselves and--others making the same decision they are making.

The only thing that gives me pause to this idea is that the under 12 crowd and what long term effects there might be among those few that get this.  I guess it is time to remember early on when Dr Fauci  said he was more concerned about the flu than Covid-19 because kids die of the flu every years  So maybe the risk calculation is such that kids with Covid is just well within the ranges of other things such that this is only a concern because of the stresses of the past fourteen months, but it still gives me pause.

(Again that said the kids on my street have been playing together largely without masks and certainly no distancing since at least last June.  So I have some anecdotal "warm and fuzzies". )

Edited by Bottomfeeder Sports
Either the editor, or my keyboard, or me keeps leaving out characters. Probably more that I missed in the quick reread scan.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Schools weren’t shut down because of possible risk to children; they were shut down because of risks to the children’s parents and grandparents, and to teachers, administrators, etc. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jm192 said:

Nah.

But I was responding to what sounds like an angry physician because "MAGA" dudes were refusing the vaccine and had the audacity to question the CDC.  At some point, gotta let people make their bad decisions and live with them.  You're right, earlier in this, that was not appropriate.  But we're to the point now--if you want the vaccine you can get it.  Time to live and let live.  

I get some of the anger out of both.  CDC for adopting slowly...but the internet sleuths spiking the football are pretty bad too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gov. Beshear announced all restrictions will be lifted in KY on June 11th.   (with the exception of masks in locatioins that house the most vulnerable, I'm assuming he's referring to nursing homes and assisted living facilities).  100% capacity for venues and events.  

Giving 1 month to let kids 12-15 get vaccinated.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sho nuff said:

The difference is those things don’t present a public health issue.   Cirrhosis and lung cancer doesn’t spread throughout the population.   So yeah, we treat infectious diseases differently and we should.

Those patients making poor choices and getting sick take up hospital beds from other people.  So yeah I’d say you’re wrong again. It is a public health issue 

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Darwin will deal with those people.  It's time to move on.

are you saying that they'll die for not wearing masks and getting shots and so be it, its time for that to happen and move on ?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Preliminary, not yet peer reviewed study on the impact of opening schools in Texas and Covid.

And I am one that thinks that while it has been a challenge (high school football games were forfeited - in Friday Night Lights Texas, one child at daycare (not a school) shut down an entire school system for 10 days etc.) ,  that reopening schools for in-person was largely successful and the right thing to do.

Can you at least give a one sentence summary here?  It’s a technical paper that is 75 pages long.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

are you saying that they'll die for not wearing masks and getting shots and so be it, its time for that to happen and move on ?

 

Not to speak for Commish, but: 

People are allowed to take their own risks.  We have the tools to lower the degree of risk.  But if people want to refuse it and have a higher risk of getting COVID--then at this point it's on you.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Commish said:

This is exactly my thought.  What they fail to realize is that there is a Venn diagram of a big circle on it that is "ain't gunna wear no mask" and "ain't gunna get no shot" group.  It's been the obvious problem from the beginning.  Those people aren't going to be changed, so its pointless to try and form messaging around them.  Darwin will deal with those people.  It's time to move on.

Now, for me, I will wear a mask as long as my kids have to wear one.  I have one that's 4, one that's 9 and one getting his first shot today.  But as a matter of empathy and example, I plan on wearing mine until they don't have to.

Darwin deal with smokers that get lung cancer?  People that eat fast food, get fat and have heart attacks?  Or only stuff you make political?

what a gross disgusting post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

Darwin deal with smokers that get lung cancer?  People that eat fast food, get fat and have heart attacks?  Or only stuff you make political?

what a gross disgusting post

I think they're actually very comparable.  

You choose to smoke, you may get lung cancer.  You choose to drink heavily, you may get cirrhosis.  You choose to refuse the vaccine--you may get COVID.  

I think you're allowed to make whatever choice you want.  But consequences are a thing.  Maybe it's harsh to say it's Darwinism.  

But the bigger point:  You get to make your own choices and deal with the consequences.

Edited by jm192
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

are you saying that they'll die for not wearing masks and getting shots and so be it, its time for that to happen and move on ?

 

no

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

Darwin deal with smokers that get lung cancer?  People that eat fast food, get fat and have heart attacks?  Or only stuff you make political?

what a gross disgusting post

Deals with all that unfortunately.  It's how we become a stronger society from a biological standpoint.  We need to be at a point as a society that we can protect those who can't get the vaccine.  Part of that is through people getting vaccinated.  Part of that is people getting the disease and beating it.  Part of that is people getting the disease and dying from it.  We're actively addressing #1.  If people choose to potentially be #2 because they don't want to be #1, they have to be prepared to be #3.  That's their decision.

That's true of every scenario you list above too.  Nice try at a gotcha, but it's another fail.  This is how biology works.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jm192 said:

Maybe it's harsh to say it's Darwinism.  

It's definitely harsh, but that's what these decisions are ultimately about whether people like it or not.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jm192 said:

I think they're actually very comparable.  

You choose to smoke, you may get lung cancer.  You choose to drink heavily, you may get cirrhosis.  You choose to refuse the vaccine--you may get COVID.  

I think you're allowed to make whatever choice you want.  But consequences are a thing.  Maybe it's harsh to say it's Darwinism.  

But the bigger point:  You get to make your own choices and deal with the consequences.

Agree with all of that except the Darwin part.  Pretty much a jerk thing to say.  I guess he believes everyone gets what they deserve

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Deals with all that unfortunately.  It's how we become a stronger society from a biological standpoint.  We need to be at a point as a society that we can protect those who can't get the vaccine.  Part of that is through people getting vaccinated.  Part of that is people getting the disease and beating it.  Part of that is people getting the disease and dying from it.  We're actively addressing #1.  If people choose to potentially be #2 because they don't want to be #1, they have to be prepared to be #3.  That's their decision.

That's true of every scenario you list above too.  Nice try at a gotcha, but it's another fail.  This is how biology works.

For the millionth time, people choose not to get vaccines for many reasons.  It's not always because of Trump, because they're stupid, because they don't care if someone else gets sick, or any other conspiracy theories you guys have thrown out there.  Other vaccines have affected their immune system so why would they go take this one and wreck themselves?  But if they get covid they deserve it, right?  Or if some of you get your way, they should be locked out of going into businesses.   Neat 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

Darwin deal with smokers that get lung cancer?  People that eat fast food, get fat and have heart attacks?  Or only stuff you make political?

what a gross disgusting post

:goodposting:

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, jm192 said:

I'm a hospitalist that has worked on the COVID unit in our hospital for this past year.  At one point we had a COVID census in the 50's.  I've intubated more COVID patients than I can count.  I've told families their loved one wasn't going to make it.  I've fought the fight.

I'm of the belief we have to let people make their own poor health decisions and deal with the consequences of those decisions.  People are allowed to drink to their heart's content.  Cirrhosis?  We'll take care of you.  Smoke until you get lung cancer and COPD?  We'll take care of you.  Want to refuse a vaccine and get COVID?  That's your choice too.  At some point, we've got to let the people that have done what they're asked to do move forward and take care of the ones who don't take care of themselves when they get sick.

First off thank you for your work, I’m sure there are countless families that owe you a debt of gratitude.  
 

For your COVID take I generally agree, but when it comes to communicable diseases, especially deadly ones, it’s vastly more complicated.  The CDC is in a very difficult position with things like this.  Having to advise 300+ million people as a whole is an exercise fraught with complexity and compromise. Most of my adult life I’ve had to make decisions and lead large groups of people. I can tell you first hand it’s not always about what’s “right” but what’s best for the group and sometimes that means managing down to the lowest common denominator.  The CDC is always going to be hyper conservative in its approach with things like this, the stakes are simply to high not to be.   It’s easy to play arm chair QB (or rocket scientist) when the stakes are extremely low if your wrong.  
 

*not calling you the arm chair QB, just speaking in general 

Edited by dkp993
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

It is just that [the CDC's] guidance is about 330 million people and not just "me". 

Huge point. What's right for the individual may or may not be right for society at large.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

For the millionth time, people choose not to get vaccines for many reasons.  It's not always because of Trump, because they're stupid, because they don't care if someone else gets sick, or any other conspiracy theories you guys have thrown out there.  Other vaccines have affected their immune system so why would they go take this one and wreck themselves?  But if they get covid they deserve it, right?  Or if some of you get your way, they should be locked out of going into businesses.   Neat 

You really need to learn to read what people are saying.  I say very clearly:

14 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

We need to be at a point as a society that we can protect those who can't get the vaccine.

There are valid reasons for not getting the vaccine.  There are invalid reasons for not getting the vaccine.  I care very little about those who are using invalid reasons to not get the vaccine (thus the Darwin dig...and yes, it's a dig...just not toward the people you seem to think).  So you continue trying to change my words to mean something other than what they do.  I've stated clearly now twice my position.  Hopefully you accept that and move on...or don't and continue to misrepresent my words, doesn't matter much to me.

Edited by The Commish
  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jm192 said:

You're right, earlier in this, that was not appropriate.  But we're to the point now--if you want the vaccine you can get it.  Time to live and let live.  

Agree, 100%.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

For the millionth time, people choose not to get vaccines for many reasons.  It's not always because of Trump, because they're stupid, because they don't care if someone else gets sick, or any other conspiracy theories you guys have thrown out there.  Other vaccines have affected their immune system so why would they go take this one and wreck themselves?  But if they get covid they deserve it, right?  Or if some of you get your way, they should be locked out of going into businesses.   Neat 

The bolded is absolutely true, I have one of those in my family, and it’s an extremely valid reason.  But it’s a very small percentage of the overall population and EXACTLY the reason why everyone else should get vaccinated, to help protect those that can’t.  Unfortunately the majority of people not getting it are for personal choice reasons or fear, not for the bolded.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, ekbeats said:

Can you at least give a one sentence summary here?  It’s a technical paper that is 75 pages long.

I'm on page 13 so take this for what it is worth-

Opening schools in Texas during a period of time where cases were spiking (which differentiates Texas from some other studied openings such as in rural communities or Germany) and at 90% capacity (as opposed to places with staggered days) resulted in an estimated 43,000 additional Covid cased and 800 additional deaths.   That this seems to be as much about the behaviors of the greater community (more parents going back to work, relaxing in other precautions, basically getting out more) than necessarily what happened directly in schools - but that is based on the first 13 pages so maybe a premature conclusion as to what it says.   

It is interesting and seemingly balanced from my untrained view.  I suggest browsing the first two or three pages  will give you a feel, at least so far.  But I am the point where it turns to the raw data so it might get dryer and less interesting.

ETA:  After the first few pages so far it largely discusses how Texas is different from other studied places both in what was going on and its large number of counties all opening at roughly the same times represented a good mix of situations (rural vs urban, large vs small, diverse populations vs not so much, etc.)

Edited by Bottomfeeder Sports
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

For the millionth time, people choose not to get vaccines for many reasons.  It's not always because of Trump, because they're stupid, because they don't care if someone else gets sick, or any other conspiracy theories you guys have thrown out there.  Other vaccines have affected their immune system so why would they go take this one and wreck themselves?  But if they get covid they deserve it, right?  Or if some of you get your way, they should be locked out of going into businesses.   Neat 

1.  No one deserves lung cancer.  But if you smoke, you're accepting that risk.  No one deserves COVID, but if you don't take the vaccine, there's the risk.

2.  I'm not sure why anti-vaccine is a Pro-Trump thing.  Trump's entire Covid platform was "We're going to have vaccines." But a lot of Trump supporters are almost defiantly against taking the Vaccine.  

3.  I'm sure there are people that have had some negative consequences of previous vaccines.  But I don't think that represents a large part of the population or the anti-vax crowd.  

I get your point that you shouldn't be denigrated for not taking the vaccine.  But do realize, there's additional risk in not taking it.  And at this point the country needs to open back up.  I assume you're fine with the risk.  A lot of people were fine taking their own risks pre-vaccine.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, The Commish said:
24 minutes ago, The Commish said:

We need to be at a point as a society that we can protect those who can't get the vaccine.

By accident, you attributed the quote above to Rambling Wreck. No biggie, I just wanted to spotlight this point because it is important ... and if RW had written it, the spotlight on it would be all the brighter.

RW is right that some percentage of people should not get the vaccine due to legitimate medical reasons. And that points right back to the line in red above -- the best way to protect those who can't get the vaccine is: To get the vaccine if you can.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Commish said:

This is exactly my thought.  What they fail to realize is that there is a Venn diagram of a big circle on it that is "ain't gunna wear no mask" and "ain't gunna get no shot" group.  It's been the obvious problem from the beginning.  Those people aren't going to be changed, so its pointless to try and form messaging around them.  Darwin will deal with those people.  It's time to move on.

Now, for me, I will wear a mask as long as my kids have to wear one.  I have one that's 4, one that's 9 and one getting his first shot today.  But as a matter of empathy and example, I plan on wearing mine until they don't have to.

No there isn’t a single circle, that’s just in your head as usual.  I never did wear a mask, not really. I got vaccinated as soon as I could. 
 

Your disgusting broad brush comments is noted. Not sure why that’s even allowed in here. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...