Vaccine

Isn't that slightly disingenuous though, given that online learning was prevalent and mask mandates in place for in person, at least in the school districts I'm familiar with. So does that testify for the effectiveness of masks ;)?
Maybe so, but its more of a testament to the fact that in-person learning was perfectly safe and online "learning" was completely unnecessary and done out of irrational fear, and in some districts in part because of politics.

Not sure how you differentiate between the effects of masks vs. children not being good hosts or transmitters of the virus.
 
It's not 80%. You don't need a complex model or math to know it's not 80%. Even you weren't at 80% at your last positions. Math helps determine precision. It doesn't help justify fantasies.

It's also a horrible message to be implying mask forever when they are trying to convince people to vaxx the kids. What's worse is it may give people false confidence that they don't need to vaxx if the masks are 80% effective.

For you even 5% is the end of the argument because you never do a cost/benefit analysis. There are costs, particularly when it comes to masking kids. Yesterday I was over the lunch hour on a walk with the dog I went to the bank a couple blocks down on Ventura Blvd. Counted 17 masks on my side of the street. So don't say there isn't any cost. Remember when we had the freak outs about plastic bags and plastic straws? Where the freak out now????
I worry less about individual protection than the effect on overall transmission. Can we get R<1, using things that are not too disruptive.

Best estimate I have is that covid can’t grow in a masked, vaccinated population. It can spread, but numbers decline because R is less than 1.

For me, I don’t find masks and vaccines all that disruptive. If we still needed to close major parts of the economy and education system, the decision would be harder. But the evidence so far is that masks and vaccines are enough to push R below 1, if all of us use them.
 
You don't happen to be the attorney for the armorer on that Alec Baldwin movie do you? Just a gut instinct I have.

The only ones making up crap are the armorer's attorney and the strict constructionist/wannabe constitutional scholar. But I can see how quoting language right out of the regulation is offensive to you, since you're one of those people who is going to believe what they want to believe, instead of the truth.
 
The only ones making up crap are the armorer's attorney and the strict constructionist/wannabe constitutional scholar. But I can see how quoting language right out of the regulation is offensive to you, since you're one of those people who is going to believe what they want to believe, instead of the truth.
No worries. I was just going to give you a heads up that if you were the armorer's attorney that you might want to make sure that your paid up on your malpractice insurance. Since your so knowledgeable about the law is it that hard to find a decent attorney in Hollywood? The assistant director's attorney isn't any better.
 
I worry less about individual protection than the effect on overall transmission. Can we get R<1, using things that are not too disruptive.

Best estimate I have is that covid can’t grow in a masked, vaccinated population. It can spread, but numbers decline because R is less than 1.

For me, I don’t find masks and vaccines all that disruptive. If we still needed to close major parts of the economy and education system, the decision would be harder. But the evidence so far is that masks and vaccines are enough to push R below 1, if all of us use them.
I don't know why we have to worry about transmission if all the vulnerable have been offered the opportunity to have a vaccine.

Your best estimate is belied by what's happening in Oregon, Scotland and Singapore. Even in your bay area you've moved up in tiers. But we really don't have enough data yet, I concede, to know this. The key fact, as we discussed, is what is the breakthrough rate and does that rate increase over time.

If the test is are masks "disruptive" then yes they are at least to a portion of the population: autistic, ADHD, young children learning to speak and read, the deaf, people with claustrophobic conditions, children with other learning issues. There are other costs as well.
 
There you have it, all this word count on personality and not a mention of policy. You've made my point perfectly. Although, I don't know any free Men, when talking about other men, are so obsessed with popularity contests and use descriptions like "spoiled child" and "special kind of scary"..... Sounds a little wife-dominant puppeting to me.

Again, congrats on achieving a status where gas and food prices along with reckless foreign policy decisions don't hit home. But let's face it, this doesn't change my point that your wife probably mandated she fill out your mail-in ballot while you submissively massaged her bunions.
You have also made my point that policy doesn't matter a bit when we respond by marginalizing anyone who disagrees on anything. The electorate is at a point where this is accepted and encouraged by both "sides". I see this as a fundamental underlying issue, so I won't go down that road.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.
- ML King

One of my wife's favorite actresses
You can tell more about a person by what he says about others than by what others say about him.
- Audrey Hepburn

I'd write more but I need to get back to my wife's bunions.
 
I don't know why we have to worry about transmission if all the vulnerable have been offered the opportunity to have a vaccine.

Your best estimate is belied by what's happening in Oregon, Scotland and Singapore. Even in your bay area you've moved up in tiers. But we really don't have enough data yet, I concede, to know this. The key fact, as we discussed, is what is the breakthrough rate and does that rate increase over time.

If the test is are masks "disruptive" then yes they are at least to a portion of the population: autistic, ADHD, young children learning to speak and read, the deaf, people with claustrophobic conditions, children with other learning issues. There are other costs as well.
Why worry about cases when we all have been offerred vaccines? Because some people, like Colin Powell or Watfly’s wife’s uncle, are still vulnerable even after vaccination.

My county is only 85% vaccinated for 12+. The other 15% are not fully vaccinated. The case rate among vaccinated is down to 5.1 per 100K, and flat. The case rate among unvaccinated is worse, currently at 28.3 per 100K and growing.

In other words, covid is not growing among our masked and vaccinated population. Covid is growing among our unvaccinated population.
 
Why worry about cases when we all have been offerred vaccines? Because some people, like Colin Powell or Watfly’s wife’s uncle, are still vulnerable even after vaccination.

My county is only 85% vaccinated for 12+. The other 15% are not fully vaccinated. The case rate among vaccinated is down to 5.1 per 100K, and flat. The case rate among unvaccinated is worse, currently at 28.3 per 100K and growing.

In other words, covid is not growing among our masked and vaccinated population. Covid is growing among our unvaccinated population.

You don't even analyze what you write do you?: "COVID is growing among our unvaccinated population".

time and time again you continue to refuse to do a cost/benefit analysis. EVERY SINGLE FREAKING TIME despite it being laid out for you repeatedly. You don't answer why someone who is deaf or a kid who is speech delayed in school or a kid who has missed out on 2 years of a regular childhood needs to sacrifice to save Colin Powell, who has led a very full life and had a myriad of other health concerns. Concerned about grandma? Get them their booster, don't see them without getting tested, offer to do their grocery shopping and pharmacy shopping, have them wear their N95, and meet them outdoors. And I have skin in this game and carefully practice what I preach (Arizona tournament...cough cough cough).
 
Why worry about cases when we all have been offerred vaccines? Because some people, like Colin Powell or Watfly’s wife’s uncle, are still vulnerable even after vaccination.
So is it your assumption that Colin Powell and my wife's uncle got the virus from an unvaccinated person?

I believe you're strategy fundamentally depends on reaching zero Covid cases, but correct me if I'm wrong.
 
So is it your assumption that Colin Powell and my wife's uncle got the virus from an unvaccinated person?

I believe you're strategy fundamentally depends on reaching zero Covid cases, but correct me if I'm wrong.

it's self-contradictory. If they got it from an unvaccinated person, and it's growing in the unvaccinated population, why restrict the vaccinated? But we know the vaccinated are passing it too.

His assumption is that if everyone is vaccinated + everyone is masked the thing either stabilizes at R1 or just below it, or drops so much that it ultimately disappears. The big flaw in his thinking is that assuming arguendo masks were to work at 80%, 1) we are pretty sure vaccine immunity is dropping which means the herd immunity number is a whack a mole figure that keeps drifting away unless you are going to mandate boosters for everyone (and we don't know yet if boosters are like a chicken pox shot or like the flu shot), 2) mask don't help in indoor situations where people are in prolonged contact which means anyone working in person in close quarters is vulnerable, 3) people won't (short of employing an army of Karens to inform them) wear masks in private gatherings or stop having private gatherings for 2+ years and 4) with animals now catching it and deer and mink transmitting it, there is a zoonotic reserve to spread it. The only real shot at herd immunity is if everyone gets it (and gets it quickly at one time) (except the vulnerable to the extent you can seal them up) whether vaxxed or taking their chances now but that is an unproven position since while we most of the data (the CDC propaganda piece notwithstanding) shows natural immunity > vaccine immunity, we don't know (especially if you had a mild case) if it is 100% immunity or enough to really create a long lasting herd immunity.
 
No worries. I was just going to give you a heads up that if you were the armorer's attorney that you might want to make sure that your paid up on your malpractice insurance. Since your so knowledgeable about the law is it that hard to find a decent attorney in Hollywood? The assistant director's attorney isn't any better.

Have you ever looked at bar exam questions? In general, they present an ambiguous situation and you have to choose one side to argue. Lawyers are thus screened for their ability to advance their clients' positions no matter how ludicrous their arguments are.
 
Have you ever looked at bar exam questions? In general, they present an ambiguous situation and you have to choose one side to argue. Lawyers are thus screened for their ability to advance their clients' positions no matter how ludicrous their arguments are.


Not true. The California bar exam does not encourage you to argue one side or the other. If you do, you will fail (though they sometimes do give a question argue one side or another....but that question usually has a right answer). It is an issue spotting exam. For example, on the 2021 test, it gives you a fact pattern and asks you what evidentiary objections could be raised or what remedies are available. The other part of it is a multiple choice test asking basic black letter law questions.

The LSAT is illustrative too. It's a reading comprehension test and logic test (at least when I took it...perfect score baby!)
 
I'd step back for a moment and look at reality. Had Trump not been an ahole at times there is a good chance Trump would still be President. So character does matter. Now you can blame that on voters who are "unmanly" are easily offended, or only care about personality, the media, etc. However, Trump did nothing to help himself with certain unnecessary comments. Yes, the media had it out for him, but why make their job easier?

One irony when you talk about toughness is Trump himself. He is one of the thinnest skinned, easily offended individuals around. I think you might mistake his retaliatory insults as toughness, when in fact it is the opposite. Much of his divisive rhetoric came as a result of him being thin-skinned. You notice that Trump never said these insults to anyone's face....typically only when he had a favorable audience. I believe that would fall under the category of "passive/aggressive". I know the common belief is that Trump is a narcissist. I disagree. I think he has low self esteem that he tries to compensate for by being an a-hole. I could be wrong here, but I've been around a number of successful people that would often raise themselves up by knocking others down.

In defense of Trump, he had no tolerance for bureaucracy. So he was brutal on bureaucrats, which I believe was warranted. Anyone who has ever run a business, knows bureaucracy is the biggest obstacle to progress. Trump was also brilliant with the use of leverage (in great contrast to Obama), however, this was often portrayed as bullying by the media, and in some cases it did border on bullying.

Sorry, but you can't lay this all at the doorstep of personality voters. Trump had very good policies, great compared to Obama and Biden, but he is not the prophet you make him out to be.

Nikki Haley 2024 :)
What! Now this is word count worthy. This has got to be a parody of the other post or you are delusional, but either way, this is a another sterling example of my point - an emotional word salad all about personality and manners, although I’ll give credit for a general policy mention. But seriously, are you sure someone else didn't write this while you were busy massaging bunions?

Where to start......

How it started: “Had Trump not been an ahole at times there is a good chance Trump would still be President.”
How it ended: “Sorry, but you can't lay this all at the doorstep of personality voters.”
1) You really didn’t notice the contradiction?
2) Seriously? “ahole”, you’re addressing another Man, you can use asshole.

“He is one of the thinnest skinned, easily offended individuals around.”
1) What Men talk like this, especially to and about other Men?
2) Did you grow up with all older sisters?

“I believe that would fall under the category of "passive/aggressive".
1) See 1 & 2 above.

“I think you might mistake his retaliatory insults as toughness, when in fact it is the opposite”
1) You think I might mistake….no, allow me to remove any question for you – retaliatory insults ARE toughness.
2) If you are constantly called a racist Russian agent and your wife and kids receive a never ending barrage of vile insults…..your response would be what? “cut it out, you’re being passive/aggressive”

“You notice that Trump never said these insults to anyone's face”
1) Again, What! Were you in a coma during the Republican primary debates with, I forgot the total number of candidates,18 to 20ish, the presidential debates. and the historical number of presidential press conferences and encounters? ***Although I have no proof, I’m willing to bet if there were cameras behind closed doors…… We’d see the same.
2) Also, this one has me leaning away from parody and more towards delusional.

“portrayed as bullying by the media, and in some cases it did border on bullying.”
1) Again, no thoughts of contradiction passed through your cranium with this one?
2) Although I must admit, probably unbeknownst to you, but you hit comedy gold with this.

“he is not the prophet you make him out to be.”
1) "In reality" I can give two shits about Trump personally. All the emotionally driven personality/vulgarity/manners/mean tweets etc. etc. etc., only crosses my mind when I see it as a weakness in others. I measure a Man by his word, actions, and results..... based on that I put Trump up there with Reagan as one of the greatest presidents in my lifetime and found it easy to cast, and will again cast my vote for him, regardless of what my wife thinks or says.

Speaking of my wife, like you and many women, she focused on and struggled with the emotional personality judgments of Trump. But ultimately, being a first-generation immigrant, she intelligently and wisely understood the huge impact of elections beyond personalities, along with what was best for her family and country, making the choice obvious and easy.

As for me, having spent most of my adult life in the military and law enforcement and having felt and lived the actual consequences of elections, our binary choice is always logically obvious and easy.....It's the emotional illogical choices of others, that we are currently living through, that are hard to comprehend. But I believe the answer is somewhere within one of my favorite quotes:

You have never lived until you've almost died. For those who have fought for it, life has a flavor the protected shall never know.”
— Guy De Maupassant
 
So is it your assumption that Colin Powell and my wife's uncle got the virus from an unvaccinated person?

I believe you're strategy fundamentally depends on reaching zero Covid cases, but correct me if I'm wrong.
Not quite. I believe that the chain of contagion that led to each new case contained some unmasked and unvaccinated people.

The identity of the last person in each chain is not really the point. The point is that, if more of us are masked and vaccinated, then covid will reach fewer vulnerable people. The chain will break somewhere along the way.

Yes, I do believe that R<1 eventually leads to zero cases. But it helps even without that effect. Reducing R also leads to significantly fewer cases in the short to medium term. R=.8 has about half as many cases as R=.9, for example. This is true even if you are continually importing new cases from overseas, and therefore never get to zero.
 
Have you ever looked at bar exam questions? In general, they present an ambiguous situation and you have to choose one side to argue. Lawyers are thus screened for their ability to advance their clients' positions no matter how ludicrous their arguments are.
Ignoring whether this is true or not, if you going to advance your clients ludicrous position, at least attempt to do so convincingly without contradiction. Seriously, check out their interview on the Today show, I promise you will a good chuckle out of it.
 
it's self-contradictory. If they got it from an unvaccinated person, and it's growing in the unvaccinated population, why restrict the vaccinated? But we know the vaccinated are passing it too.

His assumption is that if everyone is vaccinated + everyone is masked the thing either stabilizes at R1 or just below it, or drops so much that it ultimately disappears. The big flaw in his thinking is that assuming arguendo masks were to work at 80%, 1) we are pretty sure vaccine immunity is dropping which means the herd immunity number is a whack a mole figure that keeps drifting away unless you are going to mandate boosters for everyone (and we don't know yet if boosters are like a chicken pox shot or like the flu shot), 2) mask don't help in indoor situations where people are in prolonged contact which means anyone working in person in close quarters is vulnerable, 3) people won't (short of employing an army of Karens to inform them) wear masks in private gatherings or stop having private gatherings for 2+ years and 4) with animals now catching it and deer and mink transmitting it, there is a zoonotic reserve to spread it. The only real shot at herd immunity is if everyone gets it (and gets it quickly at one time) (except the vulnerable to the extent you can seal them up) whether vaxxed or taking their chances now but that is an unproven position since while we most of the data (the CDC propaganda piece notwithstanding) shows natural immunity > vaccine immunity, we don't know (especially if you had a mild case) if it is 100% immunity or enough to really create a long lasting herd immunity.
You’re trying to tell me what happens to long term extrapolation of the SIR model as you change R?

You don’t have even a third of the background you would need to make the claims in the above paragraph.
 
You’re trying to tell me what happens to long term extrapolation of the SIR model as you change R?

You don’t have even a third of the background you would need to make the claims in the above paragraph.

No I'm just pointing out where your assumptions fail you. That's where mathematical models often fail...inputs, and yours are flawed. It's why, as we've discussed before, why the money generally doesn't trust people like you to make decisions like this (and why folks like you resent people like me put over you to review your work).
 
Back
Top