Vaccine

dad4 said:
None of this is driven by mandates. People here have just reacted differently than people there.
Click to expand...
Nope, just the driven by early mandates like, "No jab and your fired." Tel A Vision and the Rey Dee Ohs tell your Elk in NoCal to blindly obey the other sheep. San Fran is a disaster. I drove through Central Valley and listen to radio and that place is a mess. Normal people have lost a lot and are pissed off Dad. Good H2O being sent to the Ocean. This is all driven by politics and you know it.
 
dad4 said:
You give very little weight to culture and personal decisions.

I see a lot more masks in San Jose than I saw in San Diego. Socially acceptable distance between people is also shorter there.

To your example, pulling down masks is different, too. I volunteer at my kid’s high school. At least while I have been there, I did not see kids pulling down their masks to talk. The culture at the school is to step outside, and then talk.

None of this is driven by mandates. People here have just reacted differently than people there.
Click to expand...
I'll file this under "bigger no shit". Per capita death rate in SD County is 0.16%, per capita death rate Santa Clara County 0.12%. Statistically irrelevant difference in terms of outcomes. I'm sure you can exercise some mental gymnastics to rationalize relevance.

Relatively speaking SD did great with Covid particularly when you consider SD is a border town and a significant number of Mexican citizens sought treatment in San Diego. It did overwhelm a few hospitals in our South Bay area.
 
watfly said:
I'll file this under "bigger no shit". Per capita death rate in SD County is 0.16%, per capita death rate Santa Clara County 0.12%. Statistically irrelevant difference in terms of outcomes. I'm sure you can exercise some mental gymnastics to rationalize relevance.

Relatively speaking SD did great with Covid particularly when you consider SD is a border town and a significant number of Mexican citizens sought treatment in San Diego. It did overwhelm a few hospitals in our South Bay area.
Click to expand...
You see a 25% difference in per capita death rate, and describe it as nothing?

No wonder you think masks don’t work. You’re applying a standard which denies the existence of small improvements.

Of course, by the same logic, anti-lock brakes must be useless, because they are associated with a less than 25% decrease in overall traffic fatalities.

I will agree that both masks and antilock brakes require better statistics than a 2 city comparison, but neither device is useless.
 
dad4 said:
You see a 25% difference in per capita death rate, and describe it as nothing?

No wonder you think masks don’t work. You’re applying a standard which denies the existence of small improvements.

Of course, by the same logic, anti-lock brakes must be useless, because they are associated with a less than 25% decrease in overall traffic fatalities.

I will agree that both masks and antilock brakes require better statistics than a 2 city comparison, but neither device is useless.
Click to expand...
Right on cue with your entirely predictable answer. You apparently have no clue about the concept of materiality. Yes, lets invoke costly policies that make a 0.04% difference in an outcome. That's insanity. Only in government and academia is that type of thinking possible. In the real world you'd be fired.

"Yeah mom I got 0.16% of the questions right on my math test."
"Jimmy that is terrible"
"No mom, I did 25% better than Johnny"
 
watfly said:
Right on cue with your entirely predictable answer. You apparently have no clue about the concept of materiality. Yes, lets invoke costly policies that make a 0.04% difference in an outcome. That's insanity. Only in government and academia is that type of thinking possible. In the real world you'd be fired.

"Yeah mom I got 0.16% of the questions right on my math test."
"Jimmy that is terrible"
"No mom, I did 25% better than Johnny"
Click to expand...

If you compare deaths per total population, I’m sure anti-lock brakes come in a whole lot lower than 0.04%. By that standard, anti-lock brakes are costly and result in a truly tiny difference in outcome.

Can you address topics without comments like “you apparently have no clue” and “you’d be fired”? It’s rude.
 
dad4 said:
If you compare deaths per total population, I’m sure anti-lock brakes come in a whole lot lower than 0.04%. By that standard, anti-lock brakes are costly and result in a truly tiny difference in outcome.

Can you address topics without comments like “you apparently have no clue you choose to completely disregard” and “you’d likely be fired”? It’s rude.
Click to expand...
Fair criticism. I made the changes above.
 
dad4 said:
You give very little weight to culture and personal decisions.

I see a lot more masks in San Jose than I saw in San Diego. Socially acceptable distance between people is also shorter there.

To your example, pulling down masks is different, too. I volunteer at my kid’s high school. At least while I have been there, I did not see kids pulling down their masks to talk. The culture at the school is to step outside, and then talk.

None of this is driven by mandates. People here have just reacted differently than people there.
Click to expand...
Wow, I went out of town for a bit, locked out of my account, and now finally allowed to create a new account (I probably shouldn't have). ---And this is still going on???

Masks? culture, personal decisions? Funny you say all of these things. While traveling, even the "cultures" that wear masks are wearing them wrong.

Masks? really...kids never wear them correctly, they are not desiged for kids, and kids have to eat. I mean, aren't these things we figured out 2 years ago?

Your school(s) are wearing masks...still? and you step outside to talk. Do you stand beyond 6 feet? talk via cell phone or megaphone? I bet every single person in your school is hyper vaxxed. People in San Jose stand further away from people in San Diego? Yikes. but have to admire that you notice the difference in distance between people with such accuracy.

I mean..really..
 
watfly said:
Fair criticism. I made the changes above.
Click to expand...
and still completley dodged the core of the argument:

A 0.04% population death rate is still quite important.

I choose to disregard your “only 0.04%” death rate argument because it is not something you would be willing to apply in any other context. What other 0.04% population death rate do you consider to be insignificant?
 
dad4 said:
and still completley dodged the core of the argument:

A 0.04% population death rate is still quite important.

I choose to disregard your “only 0.04%” death rate argument because it is not something you would be willing to apply in any other context. What other 0.04% population death rate do you consider to be insignificant?
Click to expand...
There is no point...we have totally different risk tolerances. You think hair beads are dangerous. You seem to believe in absolute zero in your risk assessments. I do not, I wouldn't leave my house if I did.

If we were to design policies around a .04% risk of death factor, we couldn't do anything. It wouldn't even be safe to even stay home. Life comes with risk. However, the risk factor isn't the only element to consider and that's where you have your biggest blind spot. You also have to consider the costs of the other negative consequences. Anti-lock brakes aren't a relevant comparison because anti-lock brakes have no material (and likely no) negative consequences other than additional $. Whereas masks do. The biggest in my mind is the false sense of security they provide (or as advertised to provide), which encourages Covid positive individuals to go out in public because "mask works". The development consequences of interrupted child development is also concerning (not to mention the difference in death rate between mask wearing children and not masking wearing children is many times less than 0.04%).

You come from a perspective that Covid should be our biggest concern in terms of these health policies. While others may understand that the risk from the negative consequences of some of these policies pose a much greater risk. We shouldn't all have to indulge the lowest common denominator when it comes to acceptance of risk. I haven't seen anything in the Constitution that guaranties a risk free life.
 
watfly said:
There is no point...we have totally different risk tolerances. You think hair beads are dangerous. You seem to believe in absolute zero in your risk assessments. I do not, I wouldn't leave my house if I did.

If we were to design policies around a .04% risk of death factor, we couldn't do anything. It wouldn't even be safe to even stay home. Life comes with risk. However, the risk factor isn't the only element to consider and that's where you have your biggest blind spot. You also have to consider the costs of the other negative consequences. Anti-lock brakes aren't a relevant comparison because anti-lock brakes have no material (and likely no) negative consequences other than additional $. Whereas masks do. The biggest in my mind is the false sense of security they provide (or as advertised to provide), which encourages Covid positive individuals to go out in public because "mask works". The development consequences of interrupted child development is also concerning (not to mention the difference in death rate between mask wearing children and not masking wearing children is many times less than 0.04%).

You come from a perspective that Covid should be our biggest concern in terms of these health policies. While others may understand that the risk from the negative consequences of some of these policies pose a much greater risk. We shouldn't all have to indulge the lowest common denominator when it comes to acceptance of risk. I haven't seen anything in the Constitution that guaranties a risk free life.
Click to expand...

Who on earth encourages covid positive individuals to go out in public?

I have never heard anyone, anywhere, make that argument. Every message I have heard, right or left, is that people should isolate while sick.

If you think this opinion is common, can you point to anyone who holds it?
 
dad4 said:
Who on earth encourages covid positive individuals to go out in public?

I have never heard anyone, anywhere, make that argument. Every message I have heard, right or left, is that people should isolate while sick.

If you think this opinion is common, can you point to anyone who holds it?
Click to expand...

So he gives you a bunch of reasons how irrelevant .04 is and you decide to question "who on earth encourages covid positive individuals to go out in public?" Really...is that because you realize his other points are valid, so you try to focus on the sarcastic?

I do give you credit though , you do not give up easily...its a slow burn for you lol
 
dad4 said:
Who on earth encourages covid positive individuals to go out in public?

I have never heard anyone, anywhere, make that argument. Every message I have heard, right or left, is that people should isolate while sick.

If you think this opinion is common, can you point to anyone who holds it?
Click to expand...
uhhhh. when it seemed to serve somone's (or a particular group's) best interest. The bastion and repository of science - the cdc..

 
soccersc said:
So he gives you a bunch of reasons how irrelevant .04 is and you decide to question "who on earth encourages covid positive individuals to go out in public?" Really...is that because you realize his other points are valid, so you try to focus on the sarcastic?

I do give you credit though , you do not give up easily...its a slow burn for you lol
Click to expand...
I would compare it to a nervous twitch.
 
Jab News:
Biden admin says COVID vaccine may be available to children under 5 by late June
Pfizer requested that the FDA approve its three-shot COVID-19 vaccine for children younger than 5 on Wednesday
 
Happened again said:
uhhhh. when it seemed to serve somone's (or a particular group's) best interest. The bastion and repository of science - the cdc..

Click to expand...
I see nothing in your link which claims masks make it generally acceptable to break quarantine.

At most, people reading that article will think that election day doesn't count.

Want to try again? Who, if anyone, is arguing that masks make it ok to skip quarantine?
 
soccersc said:
So he gives you a bunch of reasons how irrelevant .04 is and you decide to question "who on earth encourages covid positive individuals to go out in public?" Really...is that because you realize his other points are valid, so you try to focus on the sarcastic?

I do give you credit though , you do not give up easily...its a slow burn for you lol
Click to expand...
His other points are trash. A death rate of .04% works out to 1200 deaths in SD county. Most people do not find that "irrelevant."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top