Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Government Response To The Coronavirus


Recommended Posts

52 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 don't consider wearing a mask or getting vaccinated political - these are health and safety measures.  IMO, mask usage is similar to seatbelts or helmets.

if you find safety to be political, thats on you.

  • Like 6
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

5 minutes ago, moleculo said:

I don't consider wearing a mask or getting vaccinated political - these are health and safety measures.  IMO, mask usage is similar to seatbelts or helmets.

if you find safety to be political, thats on you.

Not political for me.  It's about safety for me and what I put into my body

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, sho nuff said:

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

There were people here advocating masks for the flu. 

 

42 minutes ago, jm192 said:

 

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.  

 

There is tape out there of Kamala saying she wouldn’t take the Trump vaccine.  ProTrump isn’t anti vaccine. There just happens to be a lot of Trump supporters that are anti-vaxxers. That’s two circles that overlap a bit. It’s pretty clear who wants to make it pro-Trump now it isn’t his vaccine anymore. 

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

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.

 

Exactly.  I know the risks and agree the country should be open.  SHould have been opened a long time ago.  I can wear a mask if I want.  I can wash my hands and use hand sanitizer if I want.  I can choose when to join or avoid large gatherings.  

I still think his use of the Darwin analogy is just gross.  Is he saying anything bad that happens to people that had an alternative method to prevent it is a Darwin candidate?   Or is it Darwin if you don't agree with his methods and something bad happens?  It was a jerk comment.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, tonydead said:

Sorry we figured out vaccinated people don’t need to wear masks before the CDC announced it. That is fact. On the very pages you referenced. 
 

And I bet a lot of us can do our own plumbing.  I can and do. Plumbing isn’t rocket science. 

Yep, we all know you’re a genius - you tell us constantly.

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

Exactly.  I know the risks and agree the country should be open.  SHould have been opened a long time ago.  I can wear a mask if I want.  I can wash my hands and use hand sanitizer if I want.  I can choose when to join or avoid large gatherings.  

I still think his use of the Darwin analogy is just gross.  Is he saying anything bad that happens to people that had an alternative method to prevent it is a Darwin candidate?   Or is it Darwin if you don't agree with his methods and something bad happens?  It was a jerk comment.

 It's a way of trying to sound smart while simultaneously calling a group of people dumb.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's move on and discuss what they still have wrong with the new guidance.

Why do mask recommendations remain for airplanes, trains and buses?

Quote

 

You can resume activities that you did prior to the pandemic.

You can resume activities without wearing a mask or staying 6 feet apart,

 

Does not compute with

Quote

You will still be required to wear a mask on planes, buses, trains, and other forms of public transportation

What difference is there that is so dangerous with public transportation that isn't encountered in any other activity? 

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

Let's move on and discuss what they still have wrong with the new guidance.

Why do mask recommendations remain for airplanes, trains and buses?

Does not compute with

What difference is there that is so dangerous with public transportation that isn't encountered in any other activity? 

not to speak for the CDC, but I would say it's prolonged (i.e. > 2 hours) close proximity to people outside your social circle.

I would also expect this to be loosened up as more studies are completed.

Edited by moleculo
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Doug B said:
1 hour 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.

opps...apologies...thanks for the correction.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 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

But then this gives more weight to what the original guidance was. Thats been some of the most flawed thinking of this whole thing. 

What is more likely to be correct? Educated guess day one or educated guess day 100?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, tonydead said:

There were people here advocating masks for the flu. 

 

There is tape out there of Kamala saying she wouldn’t take the Trump vaccine.  ProTrump isn’t anti vaccine. There just happens to be a lot of Trump supporters that are anti-vaxxers. That’s two circles that overlap a bit. It’s pretty clear who wants to make it pro-Trump now it isn’t his vaccine anymore. 

Advocating the effectiveness of masks for fl u is not advocating indefinite restriction.  Its a mitigation effort that experts (actual experts with infectious diseases) seem to agree would help.

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

Exactly.  I know the risks and agree the country should be open.  SHould have been opened a long time ago.  I can wear a mask if I want.  I can wash my hands and use hand sanitizer if I want.  I can choose when to join or avoid large gatherings.  

I still think his use of the Darwin analogy is just gross.  Is he saying anything bad that happens to people that had an alternative method to prevent it is a Darwin candidate?   Or is it Darwin if you don't agree with his methods and something bad happens?  It was a jerk comment.

It's Darwin if you're a selfish jackoff and the reason you aren't taking the shot is just because the government is telling you it's a wise thing to do.  Of course that's clear, yet you continue with the nonsense trying to put words in peoples' mouths....it's not complicated yet you seem to be struggling mightily with it.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, moleculo said:

not to speak for the CDC, but I would say it's prolonged (i.e. > 2 hours) close proximity to people outside your social circle.

I would also expect this to be loosened up as more studies are completed.

How long are football games or basket ball games where you might be sitting next to each other?  Movie theaters?

There aren't any time limits or social circle requirements for anything else, or any mentioned at all.  

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

It's Darwin if you're a selfish jackoff and the reason you aren't taking the shot is just because the government is telling you it's a wise thing to do.  Of course that's clear, yet you continue with the nonsense trying to put words in peoples' mouths....it's not complicated yet you seem to be struggling mightily with it.  

Wait, that's not very clear.  There are a bunch of people not taking the vaccine and their sole justification is because the government says it would be wise?  Link to any of these people beside Kamala?

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

I still think his use of the Darwin analogy is just gross.  Is he saying anything bad that happens to people that had an alternative method to prevent it is a Darwin candidate?   Or is it Darwin if you don't agree with his methods and something bad happens?  It was a jerk comment.

JMHO, Darwin awards may be causing you to read too much into the Darwin reference. I don’t think Darwin is a ‘deserve’ concept. It’s just cause/effect. People who go out into the rain without an umbrella will get wet. Not because they ‘deserve’ to get wet, but because that is the natural consequence. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, tonydead said:

How long are football games or basket ball games where you might be sitting next to each other?  Movie theaters?

There aren't any time limits or social circle requirements for anything else, or any mentioned at all.  

One of these things is not like the others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours 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?

No.  We used a nuclear bomb to kill a fly.  My sister is a second grade teacher and she says that her kids are so far behind right now that she can’t envision some of them ever catching up.  She has noticed a dramatic deficiency in their social development skills.  They hardly even talk to each other.  It’s sad.  You don’t get do-overs with kid years.  So yeah, I stand by my hyperbolic statement that we we screwed up millions of kids when much of it was totally unnecessary, and it will be a shameful legacy on how we handled Covid.

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

No.  We used a nuclear bomb to kill a fly.  My sister is a second grade teacher and she says that her kids are so far behind right now that she can’t envision some of them ever catching up.  She has noticed a dramatic deficiency in their social development skills.  They hardly even talk to each other.  It’s sad.  You don’t get do-overs with kid years.  So yeah, I stand by my hyperbolic statement that we we screwed up millions of kids when much of it was totally unnecessary, and it will be a shameful legacy on how we handled Covid.

my link

Edited by moleculo
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, The Commish said:

It's Darwin if you're a selfish jackoff and the reason you aren't taking the shot is just because the government is telling you it's a wise thing to do.  Of course that's clear, yet you continue with the nonsense trying to put words in peoples' mouths....it's not complicated yet you seem to be struggling mightily with it.  

Selfish jackoff?  I've already stated I know personally know people that aren't taking it because it wrecks their immune system.  But you keep doing you and claiming it's because the government told them it was smart to do.  This might be the most ignorant post in PSF history.

  • Like 3
  • Thinking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

But Trump!   Tidbit on school reopening's in Texas from previously linked working study.

Quote

 

Trump vote share is the dominant predictor, which is consistent with previous research that showed politics drove school opening decisions (Valant, 2020). Each standard deviation increase in Trump vote share is associated with schools reopening 1.22 weeks sooner. In contrast, none of the other variables are statistically significant, and none have a magnitude greater than 0.17 weeks. The coefficient for pre-school-year caseloads is nearly zero, and its p-value is nearly 0.9. Therefore, reopening decisions appear to have been driven much more heavily by politics than public health considerations, which may be surprising but is consistent with prior research (Valant, 2020). 

 

I'd have certainly guessed that there was a large political component, even dominant component but this is more like "the" predictor rather than "a" predictor. 

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

It's Darwin if you're a selfish jackoff and the reason you aren't taking the shot is just because the government is telling you it's a wise thing to do.  Of course that's clear, yet you continue with the nonsense trying to put words in peoples' mouths....it's not complicated yet you seem to be struggling mightily with it.  

What's selfish about it?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dawgtrails said:

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.

Good for you.  You had the means and the privilege.  For others, many of them poor and minorities, this has been a nightmare.  Many had to quit jobs because they had to take care of kids at home while they “learned” via zoom. Many kids haven’t learned a thing in the past 14 months, usually kids with ADHD or from broken homes.  All to protect them from a disease that for them is about as harmful as seasonal flu.  I think it’s a very fair question to ask - did we do right by the kids?

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

Wait, that's not very clear.  There are a bunch of people not taking the vaccine and their sole justification is because the government says it would be wise?  Link to any of these people beside Kamala?

It’s a terrible inference, but apparently he needed to say it.  Lots of angry, bitter Liberals in here on a day that should be universally celebrated. 

  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ekbeats said:

Good for you.  You had the means and the privilege.  For others, many of them poor and minorities, this has been a nightmare.  Many had to quit jobs because they had to take care of kids at home while they “learned” via zoom. Many kids haven’t learned a thing in the past 14 months, usually kids with ADHD or from broken homes.  All to protect them from a disease that for them is about as harmful as seasonal flu.  I think it’s a very fair question to ask - did we do right by the kids?

I agree with you here. But as to the bolded, the goal was also to protect teachers, etc. from the virus as well as protecting other families.

Anecdote: I was talking to an older co-worker who I haven't seen in over a year. He had covid pretty bad and fortunately made a full recovery. He said he got it from his daughter, who got it from her pre-school child, who got it from their daycare due to an infected parent bringing their child to daycare. The entire daycare had to take precautions and several in his family became sick. Worth noting, this co-worker is a big Trump supporter.

But to your main point - yes, we could have done better by the kids.

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

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.  

People are allowed to take risks ...

Like being obese? Like smoking/chewing tobacco? Like texting and driving or riding an ATV/motorcycle without a helmet etc?

Maybe the risk people also take is going out into public where someone "might" be walking around with covid virus? Maybe its a personal responsibility that, if afraid of getting that virus, a person should decide for themselves and safeguard themselves ? People exercise/eat right to combat obesity, they choose not to smoke/tobacco, they don't text and drive and they wear helmet .... all of those are on the person themselves to do to prevent dangers to their life right ?

maybe personally people afraid of covid need to focus on themselves first and not everyone else ?

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

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

so if a person decides to be around others during a pandemic and they get covid - that's Darwinish right ?

85% of covid were obese - Darwinism at work ?

almost all the people dying from covid were over 50 years old - Darwin again ?

 

because it seems like what you're' really saying is the weak die, the strong survive (either through their own choices or simply old age/fragility)

am I wrong on what you're saying ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ekbeats said:

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

The narrative ends on page 38 so I think the last three sentence paragraph is the summary-

Quote

For these reasons, debate about school openings and mitigation strategies will therefore likely continue to persist into the 2021-2022 school year, and our results provide important information that can help inform that debate. In particular, the CDC guidelines say that schools can reopen if community spread is low and considerable precautions are taken. Our study is not necessarily at odds with that guidance; instead, it simply shows that school reopenings are not always safe if those conditions are not met.

Probably a let down.  Not really much of a shocker.

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

People are allowed to take risks ...

Like being obese? Like smoking/chewing tobacco? Like texting and driving or riding an ATV/motorcycle without a helmet etc?

Maybe the risk people also take is going out into public where someone "might" be walking around with covid virus? Maybe its a personal responsibility that, if afraid of getting that virus, a person should decide for themselves and safeguard themselves ? People exercise/eat right to combat obesity, they choose not to smoke/tobacco, they don't text and drive and they wear helmet .... all of those are on the person themselves to do to prevent dangers to their life right ?

maybe personally people afraid of covid need to focus on themselves first and not everyone else ?

I feel like you're arguing with me and repeating everything I've said in the same breath.

  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

almost all the people dying from covid were over 50 years old - Darwin again ?

While there might be some exceptions, this would only be true for males.  And functionally not many.

16 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

85% of covid were obese - Darwinism at work ?

Could argue that the survival advantage of being able to store energy in the form of fat for times of scarcity that was a genetic advantage for most of history backfires in modern time, especially during the pandemic.  

25 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

maybe personally people afraid of covid need to focus on themselves first and not everyone else ?

Depends on what you mean.  If you mean that these people shouldn't be telling others what to do then to a good degree this is true and becoming more true.  If you mean that people should only look out for #1 and disregard how those actions impact others then you're wrong.  What I find as an interesting dynamic in this thread is the reinforcement of the

  • Some believe that if everyone takes care of their own self interest that societies interest will take care of itself.
  • Others believe that if everyone looks out for societies best interest that their own individual self interest will be served,

.is so apparent in many of the replies.  And of course few are all of one and none of the other.  And of course those predominately in one category think the other category is the selfish one.  Those things aren't really my point.  What I find apparent is how much those predominately in one group talks right past those in the other and vice versa.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

so if a person decides to be around others during a pandemic and they get covid - that's Darwinish right ?

85% of covid were obese - Darwinism at work ?

almost all the people dying from covid were over 50 years old - Darwin again ?

 

because it seems like what you're' really saying is the weak die, the strong survive (either through their own choices or simply old age/fragility)

am I wrong on what you're saying ?

very

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

I've already stated I know personally know people that aren't taking it because it wrecks their immune system.

me too...have never been the focus of ANY of my comments no matter how much you insist they are.

1 hour ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

But you keep doing you and claiming it's because the government told them it was smart to do.

There are MANY out there not taking this vaccine simply because the government told them it was a good idea to take it and THOSE PEOPLE are the ones I AM talking about.  To be fair...this has been their position from the get go and really has nothing to do with Trump, Biden, you or me.  Morons from the get go and if that is their reason (as I've now stated four different times) I have no problem with allowing Darwin to do his work on those people.  You have a higher opinion of those people and that's fine...we all draw the line somewhere.  They will be the ones we are reporting on in the fall that keep dying unnecessarily and taking away resources at hospitals and doctors offices all over the country from people who need them that don't have a solution starring them in the face.

 

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

I feel like you're arguing with me and repeating everything I've said in the same breath.

I guess I was reiterating and then adding ..... that if personal responsibility exists with smoking, obesity, and all the other dangers we face daily .... why then can't we also address the personal responsibility people have when a pandemic hits?

If one is scared - stay home, stay away from people, isolate ......... that's on the person to do that, right ?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

While there might be some exceptions, this would only be true for males.  And functionally not many.

45 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

no its true across the board - i think its like 90% of deaths are people older than 50 isn't it ?

 

16 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Could argue that the survival advantage of being able to store energy in the form of fat for times of scarcity that was a genetic advantage for most of history backfires in modern time, especially during the pandemic.  

except this shows almost 80% of covid is obese - in other words, obesity really makes a person susceptible to this virus

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/08/covid-cdc-study-finds-roughly-78percent-of-people-hospitalized-were-overweight-or-obese.html

 

18 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

If you mean that people should only look out for #1 and disregard how those actions impact others then you're wrong.

no I mean if a person is afraid of getting the virus, don't expect everyone else in their city/state to take actions to make that person safer ....... take actions themselves like .... don't go out much, don't gather in groups, wear helmets, isolate ..... all that is dependent on SELF not on everyone else

 

what I find fascinating is blaming everyone else for themselves getting covid ............ 

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

very

exceptionally well worded explanation of what you did mean, I'll give you that :(

so if you don't expand on what you DID mean ..... ummm I'll guess to take it as its worded ???? 

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

I guess I was reiterating and then adding ..... that if personal responsibility exists with smoking, obesity, and all the other dangers we face daily .... why then can't we also address the personal responsibility people have when a pandemic hits?

If one is scared - stay home, stay away from people, isolate ......... that's on the person to do that, right ?

Lol my bad.  Yes, we're in agreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, tonydead said:
3 hours ago, moleculo said:

not to speak for the CDC, but I would say it's prolonged (i.e. > 2 hours) close proximity to people outside your social circle.

I would also expect this to be loosened up as more studies are completed.

How long are football games or basket ball games where you might be sitting next to each other?  Movie theaters?

There aren't any time limits or social circle requirements for anything else, or any mentioned at all.  

Not sure if someone's addressed this ... but there is a further major difference between (a) ballgames and movie theaters versus (b) plains, trains, buses. And that is the volume of the spaces in question. Additionally, most football & baseball games are outdoors, but for the ones that aren't ... the volume of the domes makes a big difference. Also, domes and arenas tend to have vigorous HVAC that keeps air circulating more than what's typical in, say, an average office or home (paging @GroveDiesel for a professional HVAC opinion).

But what about churches? Brass tacks -- churches where people sit together but don't shout out, sing, get in each other's spaces, etc. were probably really OK to attend all along. A quiet, solemn service -- no "peace be with you" or communion or post-service pot luck -- was likely always COVID-safe, especially in a large high-ceilinged church with some spacing in the pews. Around here, we have a lot of strip-mall churches that cram 60 folding chairs into an average living-room sized space with low ceilings and maybe-it-works HVAC -- a lot less COVID-safe.

Really, it's been a case-by-case evaluation requiring nuance. One-size covering rules weren't ideal, but they made more sense to most people in general and were much simpler to apply.

Edited by Doug B
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Doug B said:

Not sure if someone's addressed this ... but there is a further major difference between (a) ballgames and movie theaters versus (b) plains, trains, buses. And that is the volume of the spaces in question. Additionally, most football & baseball games are outdoors, but for the ones that aren't ... the volume of the domes makes a big difference. Also, domes and arenas tend to have vigorous HVAC that keeps air circulating more than what's typical in, say, an average office or home (paging @GroveDiesel for a professional HVAC opinion).

But what about churches? Brass tacks -- churches were people sit together but don't shout out, sing, get in each other's spaces, etc. were probably really OK to attend all along. A quiet, solemn service -- no "peace be with you" or communion or post-service pot luck -- was likely always COVID-safe, especially in a large high-ceilinged church with some spacing in the pews. Around here, we have a lot of strip-mall churches that cram 60 folding chairs into an average living-room sized space with low ceilings and maybe-it-works HVAC -- a lot less COVID-safe.

Really, it's been a case-by-case evolution requiring nuance. One-size covering rules weren't ideal, but they made more sense to most people in general and were much simpler to apply.

Definitely gonna need to page someone smarter than me. I know a little about ventilation and air changes as it relates to the industrial hygiene consulting I do, but I have no clue what kind of air changes large venues like sports arenas do, though now I’m definitely interested in what the answer to that is!

And I would agree that most private homes and other places have less air changes per hour. Older schools, churches, smaller businesses all probably have lower than recommended air changes due to older designs and/or old equipment. Or even just from not running the equipment properly. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought this was worth dropping into the thread:

Quote

 

Here’s the science that convinced the CDC to lift mask mandates (NBC News, 5/14/2021)

The decision was guided by scientific evidence that the vaccines have played a major role in curbing both infections and transmission of the virus.

...

In the U.S., the number of newly reported Covid-19 cases, hospitalizations and deaths are all decreasing. The most recent seven-day average for new cases fell about 23 percent over the previous week, Walensky said. The seven-day average for daily deaths also declined to 587 per day, according to the CDC.

"Today, Covid-19 deaths are at the lowest point since April 2020," Andy Slavitt, the White House Covid-19 adviser, said Thursday in a news briefing.

These statistics help reinforce that the vaccines are working — and working well, said Dr. Monica Gandhi, an infectious disease physician and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco.

"It's like we reached a tipping point in terms of the weight of the evidence showing that these are profoundly effective vaccines, beyond our wildest dreams, and they're really good at blocking transmission," Gandhi said.

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/13/2021 at 1:35 PM, Doug B said:
On 5/13/2021 at 12:55 PM, timschochet said:

The CDC says that those of us with vaccinations can stop wearing masks both inside and outside.

Now I'm curious about how long it will take for big-box retailers, local groceries, government buildings, etc. to follow suit.

Not very long, at least for one retailer:

Trader Joe's is one of the first stores to drop mask requirement for fully vaccinated customers after CDC mask update (USA Today/Yahoo, 5/14/2021)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Doug B said:

Thought this was worth dropping into the thread:

 

This is all great news.  What better way to spend a Friday afternoon/evening than setting aside the partisan sniping to celebrate success?

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Doug B said:

Not sure if someone's addressed this ... but there is a further major difference between (a) ballgames and movie theaters versus (b) plains, trains, buses. And that is the volume of the spaces in question. Additionally, most football & baseball games are outdoors, but for the ones that aren't ... the volume of the domes makes a big difference. Also, domes and arenas tend to have vigorous HVAC that keeps air circulating more than what's typical in, say, an average office or home (paging @GroveDiesel for a professional HVAC opinion).

But what about churches? Brass tacks -- churches where people sit together but don't shout out, sing, get in each other's spaces, etc. were probably really OK to attend all along. A quiet, solemn service -- no "peace be with you" or communion or post-service pot luck -- was likely always COVID-safe, especially in a large high-ceilinged church with some spacing in the pews. Around here, we have a lot of strip-mall churches that cram 60 folding chairs into an average living-room sized space with low ceilings and maybe-it-works HVAC -- a lot less COVID-safe.

Really, it's been a case-by-case evaluation requiring nuance. One-size covering rules weren't ideal, but they made more sense to most people in general and were much simpler to apply.

It’s not a case by case basis though it’s everything but airplanes, buses, and trains. They took away the distancing. Packed clubs, bars, protests. I can name a dozen things that seem to set up to spread virus more than an airplane which are very well ventilated.  

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

The CDC seems to have changed their stance about needing to wear a mask despite being vaccinated. Some have said for months now this does not make sense.

there are multiple posters on the last two pages telling people that they we’re still wrongly in inappropriately questioning the CDC’s previous stance on needing to wear a mask despite being vaccinated.

Oh, I must have missed that. I don’t think anyone believes the CDC, WHO, Fauci, etc. have been perfect, but some of us are willing to cut them a little more slack for making some mistakes during a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic.

It’s also important to note the passage of time allowed more people to be vaccinated, and data to be collected relevant to vaccine efficacy in limiting spread and efficacy versus some of the variants.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Commish said:

me too...have never been the focus of ANY of my comments no matter how much you insist they are.

There are MANY out there not taking this vaccine simply because the government told them it was a good idea to take it and THOSE PEOPLE are the ones I AM talking about.  To be fair...this has been their position from the get go and really has nothing to do with Trump, Biden, you or me.  Morons from the get go and if that is their reason (as I've now stated four different times) I have no problem with allowing Darwin to do his work on those people.  You have a higher opinion of those people and that's fine...we all draw the line somewhere.  They will be the ones we are reporting on in the fall that keep dying unnecessarily and taking away resources at hospitals and doctors offices all over the country from people who need them that don't have a solution starring them in the face.

You should have quit while you were ahead.  I’d say what you are coming across as here but I don’t want to get banned.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ekbeats said:

You should have quit while you were ahead.  I’d say what you are coming across as here but I don’t want to get banned.

If for any reason other than they are following the advice of a medical professional, it's selfish. And very much in scope of Darwin.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

no its true across the board - i think its like 90% of deaths are people older than 50 isn't it ?

FYI - Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't not concern itself with people that are beyond the age of creating offspring.  (Edit whether that is due to biology or culture.)  Now reread my post and laugh at how silly your reply becomes with that little nugget as a back drop for my reply.  Granted when you have to explain a joke it obviously wasn't that funny.  Oh well, swing and a miss.   My bad.

Edited by Bottomfeeder Sports
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

 

Selfish jackoff?  I've already stated I know personally know people that aren't taking it because it wrecks their immune system.  But you keep doing you and claiming it's because the government told them it was smart to do.  This might be the most ignorant post in PSF history.

Don’t be so hard on yourself

  • Thinking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Taladega letting people drive their own cars around the track tomorrow - with a pace car - with new vaccination.  Awesome.

Supposedly a free beer in some bar in Wisconsin spiked vaccinations.

heard about Ohio and the scholarship offer is genius

what other fun promos are out there

and for the anti- vaxers - take off, eh

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   1 member


×
×
  • Create New...