Vaccine

whatithink said:
The analogy, as I took it, was at an holistic level of two events that impacted the world (S. America could easily have entered the war if some events went another way, and there was a lot of Nazi sympathizers there, as demo'd by it being a flight destination and safe haven for them after the war). The Nazi policy would have been restricted to Germany so less Holocaust deaths, Spanish Civil war predated WW2, Japan invaded Manchuria in 1937 and deaths from that are (I assume) included etc. and so on.

The general premise, again as I took it, was that quoting survivability rates of 99.5% (or whatever) is made to sound acceptable, when that as a % of 8B people results in millions or tens of millions of deaths.

The holistic comparison obviously falls apart when you drill into details as the events are not comparable.
Click to expand...

Agree with your final sentence. See my post above. 1. The issue has always been the disconnected between the macro impact and the micro risk assessment....99.5 percent (higher for many age groups) translates into very little risk, and 2. just because it's a catastrophe doesn't mean that it's avoidable....some level of death was always baked in so we are arguing about the margins. It's telling you use the words "acceptable"....some of you have never wanted to accept (ha ha!) that it wasn't about whether something was acceptable or not....some portion of this was inevitable.
 
espola said:
Assured? I just pointed out some facts. That is only political if you feel threatened by the facts.
Click to expand...
Haha! You are at your best when you are doing comedy.

espola said:
I am curious to know more about your mother's WW2 experience that made it seem so pleasant.

My own little contribution to parental history --when I was first learning about the Great Depression, I asked my mother how it affected her life. She said that because they lived on a farm they were already poor.
Click to expand...
Told you already. Small village, Peru. Completely uninterrupted childhood (which is much more than we can say for any kids today, whether Peru or otherwise).
 
Grace T. said:
That's not the end of the thought experiment though. The argument has always been:
1. There's a real disconnect though between something being a global catastrophe and individual risk assessment. As I pointed out before, WWII may have been a global catastrophe but for my mother it was probably the best time of her life. For children COVID was never a threat. For the elderly it's been a real concern and a bigger catastrophe than the general population IFR suggests.
2. Even if it is a catastrophe, what exactly can we do about it? WWII was a man made decision. Had WWII happened or not it is likely the holocaust numbers would have happened anyways. The only thing that might have stopped that was an earlier decision by the allies to go to war either after Austria or Czechoslovakia. The San Francisco Earthquake, Black Death, and the Tonga volcano eruptions were also catastrophes. Irrespective of what we did with COVID, a certain amount of death was always going to be baked in. Again, short of a time machine where we go back and stop the likely lab leak.
Click to expand...

The Sudetenland issue stemmed from what a large portion of the German population thought was one of the injustices of the Versailles treaty. Rather than follow Wilson's ideal of national self-determination, the Sudeten Germans were included in the fictitious new nation of Czechoslovakia following provincial boundaries of the dead Austria-Hungary Empire. Allowing the Sudeten Germans to become part of 1918 Germany would have eliminated this issue before it began.

As for the Anschluss union with Austria -- both nations overwhelmingly supported it in spite of another chapter of the Versailles Treaty that forbids it.

Hitler was able to take advantage of a broad inferiority complex infecting the people of Germany to such an extent that they were willing to overlook his obvious continuing crimes. I have it on good authority that that technique still works in this Century.
 
Grace T. said:
Agree with your final sentence. See my post above. 1. The issue has always been the disconnected between the macro impact and the micro risk assessment....99.5 percent (higher for many age groups) translates into very little risk, and 2. just because it's a catastrophe doesn't mean that it's avoidable....some level of death was always baked in so we are arguing about the margins. It's telling you use the words "acceptable"....some of you have never wanted to accept (ha ha!) that it wasn't about whether something was acceptable or not....some portion of this was inevitable.
Click to expand...
There's no doubt, and never has been any, that deaths were and are inevitable. Its about the number, i.e. may I prefer smaller portion sizes to others.
 
espola said:
The Sudetenland issue stemmed from what a large portion of the German population thought was one of the injustices of the Versailles treaty. Rather than follow Wilson's ideal of national self-determination, the Sudeten Germans were included in the fictitious new nation of Czechoslovakia following provincial boundaries of the dead Austria-Hungary Empire. Allowing the Sudeten Germans to become part of 1918 Germany would have eliminated this issue before it began.

As for the Anschluss union with Austria -- both nations overwhelmingly supported it in spite of another chapter of the Versailles Treaty that forbids it.

Hitler was able to take advantage of a broad inferiority complex infecting the people of Germany to such an extent that they were willing to overlook his obvious continuing crimes. I have it on good authority that that technique still works in this Century.
Click to expand...
Yeah, at its simplest level, the Treaty of Versailles caused WW2. The Marshall Plan followed by the EEC (1957) have enabled peace in Europe for longer than basically ever.
 
soccersc said:
Our President LOL HAHAHAHA. Our country is in such trouble!!! Kinda crazy and believe it or not, a lot of people wil llisten to the President of the United States

During a July 2021 CNN town hall, U.S. President Joe Biden falsely stated that "You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations," and "If you’re vaccinated, you’re not going to be hospitalized, you’re not going to be in the ICU unit, and you’re not going to die."

www.snopes.com

Did Biden Say You Won't Get COVID if You're Vaccinated?

Biden overstated the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccinations during a July 2021 town hall.
www.snopes.com www.snopes.com
Click to expand...
What's even funnier is that he didn't pull this out of thin air. His team told him to say this. Science and medicine coming out of any WH is agenda driven.
 
whatithink said:
There's no doubt, and never has been any, that deaths were and are inevitable. Its about the number, i.e. may I prefer smaller portion sizes to others.
Click to expand...

1. That's patently not true. Maybe for you (and maybe not even for dad4) but there has been some group of people including among the expert class who supported COVID zero (at least up until it became clear the vaccines wouldn't do that). China still is wedded to COVID zero.
2. The other complaint from our side has always been that you all (again maybe not you, but certainly others, and here I would include dad4) have refused to do a cost/benefit analysis...instead always exaggerating the benefit and minimizing the cost (e.g., masks have no costs). We, from the beginning, urged a cost/benefit analysis.
 
Here's what I sincerely hope is my last prediction in these COVID forums. COVID has eroded the public trust in institutions, particularly on the right, to such a point that the legitimacy of the entire system is hanging by a thread. Little things like this might be enough to push that thread over to the breaking point. You can judge me in four years time but I tell you now we are teetering dangerously close to the societal consensus falling apart. What's happening up in Canada with the truckers is just a small taste of things to come.

 
Grace T. said:
1. That's patently not true. Maybe for you (and maybe not even for dad4) but there has been some group of people including among the expert class who supported COVID zero (at least up until it became clear the vaccines wouldn't do that). China still is wedded to COVID zero.
2. The other complaint from our side has always been that you all (again maybe not you, but certainly others, and here I would include dad4) have refused to do a cost/benefit analysis...instead always exaggerating the benefit and minimizing the cost (e.g., masks have no costs). We, from the beginning, urged a cost/benefit analysis.
Click to expand...
Even Birx was pretty clear that most of the deaths were preventable.

The right has been very consistent on this. First, they openly discourage people from following the heath guidance. Then, they point to the non compliance as proof that nothing can be done.

It has been the story with test and trace, then masks, then distance, then vaccines. Every time there is a credible way to reduce cases and deaths from covid, the right wing mobilizes to discourage people from doing it.

The only anti-covid measure the right seems to support is to medicate people after they get sick.

That isn’t “cost/benefit analysis”. That is obstructionism.
 
what-happened said:
What's even funnier is that he didn't pull this out of thin air. His team told him to say this. Science and medicine coming out of any WH is agenda driven.
Click to expand...

Exactly!! That is what I was saying to @Hüsker Dü when he said listen to the experts...and he doesnt think the President listens to experts??? How funny is that. @Hüsker Dü got that one wrong!!! The fact is they claimed a lot and have been wrong on most, once people start realizing that, the sooner we will be out of this mess
 
dad4 said:
Even Birx was pretty clear that most of the deaths were preventable.

The right has been very consistent on this. First, they openly discourage people from following the heath guidance. Then, they point to the non compliance as proof that nothing can be done.

It has been the story with test and trace, then masks, then distance, then vaccines. Every time there is a credible way to reduce cases and deaths from covid, the right wing mobilizes to discourage people from doing it.

The only anti-covid measure the right seems to support is to medicate people after they get sick.

That isn’t “cost/benefit analysis”. That is obstructionism.
Click to expand...
See whatithink. This is exhibit A....even though it's not zero dad4 is still holding onto "most of the deaths were preventable". Then to top it off he totally neglects the cost/benefit analysis. And round and round in circles we go.
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
That is the other side of the "no long term testing of vaccines" thing. We also have little understanding of long term consequences of CoV-2 infection. I've followed the long hauler thing since it really affects my sister. One way or another it appears that, even with pretty mild CoV-2 infections, there are effects (direct or indirect) transmitted across the blood brain barrier into the CNS, which can be accompanied by the types of tau protein tangles seen in nerodegenerative/inflammatory disorders. Long term impacts of that are, of course, unknown.
Click to expand...
Inflammation is a double edged sword.
 
soccersc said:
Where do you think the President gets his info, you don't think he is prepped on what to say?
Click to expand...
Does going off the teleprompter surprise or anger you? You must have gone ballistic during the previous administration! Lol! Biden often misspeaks (the last guy did too). Did anyone from the CDC or pharma companies say it was a cure?
 
Hüsker Dü said:
Does going off the teleprompter surprise or anger you? You must have gone ballistic during the previous administration! Lol! Biden often misspeaks (the last guy did too). Did anyone from the CDC or pharma companies say it was a cure?
Click to expand...

I'll actually agree with some of what you said about misspeaking, that is for sure....but you can not say you know for sure that he got that from a teleprompter, you are assuming.

CDC was very tricky in how they originally posted the effectiveness of the vaccine, they said it was 90% less likely to get infected...that pretty much makes the claim you aren't going to get it...we know now that is not true, but a lot of people felt if they got the shot they wouldn't get Covid and that was my point in the argument....how can you disagree with that? They were wrong then because they didn't know, they were assuming as well, just like you and the teleprompter

In a report published today in the MMWR, scientists at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) report more good news from real-world studies of people who have been vaccinated against COVID-19.

In the study involving 3,950 health care workers, first responders and other essential workers who were vaccinated between December 2020 and March 2021, the researchers found that the two-dose vaccines are 90% effective in protecting people from getting infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19.
 
dad being a math major misses the obvious. When he/they talk about 99.5 survival rate dad misses the point.

For the overwhelming majority of people the survival rate is substantially higher. There are really only a couple of groups that have real risk.

For the rest of us, little to no risk.

You can use the WW2 example. Hey the Russian army took horrendous casualties. TRUE. But if you were stationed in the rear...lets say in Moscow you had no risk.

On the US if you are on the front lines, death is a real concern. Working in the Pentagon not so much.

Almost all the world effectively is in the Pentagon. No real concern. And it is precisely because of that simple and yet obvious fact that we should never have shuttered biz, closed schools, mandate useless masks, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top