COVID gratuitous dumpster fire thread

ev_flores0331

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2016
407
258
1
TangSoo, what do you think are Fauci’s motives? I’m just gonna use Occam’s razor.

a_mshaffer, absolutely nobody thinks cowardice is cool. Shoot, we just pulled our kids out of a 20-year war that didn’t even require a draft. We’re not weaker as a society.
 

psumacw

Well-Known Member
Sep 18, 2017
1,220
931
1
Tell me a) how good this vaccine is against catching it and b) how I can blame an unvaxxed person for catching it?

Finally, with a country that is 60% vaxxed, cases should be going down, right? Yet, here we are with daily new cases at a rate 3 times higher than we've seen during the whole pandemic.

the studies proved that the vaccine reduced your odds of catching the variants that were around when the vaccine was developed. i don't think anyone said that they would be as effective for all variants going forward, and even if someone said that you'd be delusional to believe them. it was pretty clear that as long as people were catching covid in droves that it would continue to mutate and predominantly the people that were catching covid were unvaccinated.

now we have omicron. it's less deadly which is great, but it's much more transmissible and the vaccines were not developed with awareness that this specific variant was coming. so now both vaccinated and unvaccinated people are catching it (though with the unvaccinated still making up more than their fair share) and transmitting it.

one of the issues i see is the anti-vax people are out there counting this as a win because "see i told you vaccines don't work" because they're not recognizing the current vaccine was not developed to fight omicron and they'll continue to not get any covid vaccines despite the overwhelming evidence that the vaccine lowers your chances of 1) catching the virus, 2) being hospitalized once you have the virus, and 3) dying with the virus.
 

82bordeaux

Well-Known Member
Nov 19, 2019
3,065
8,912
1
58
eriespecialty.com
one of the issues i see is the anti-vax people are out there counting this as a win because "see i told you vaccines don't work" because they're not recognizing the current vaccine was not developed to fight omicron and they'll continue to not get any covid vaccines despite the overwhelming evidence that the vaccine lowers your chances of 1) catching the virus, 2) being hospitalized once you have the virus, and 3) dying with the virus.
giphy.gif
 

pawrestlersintn

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2013
14,755
21,376
1
the studies proved that the vaccine reduced your odds of catching the variants that were around when the vaccine was developed. i don't think anyone said that they would be as effective for all variants going forward, and even if someone said that you'd be delusional to believe them. it was pretty clear that as long as people were catching covid in droves that it would continue to mutate and predominantly the people that were catching covid were unvaccinated.

now we have omicron. it's less deadly which is great, but it's much more transmissible and the vaccines were not developed with awareness that this specific variant was coming. so now both vaccinated and unvaccinated people are catching it (though with the unvaccinated still making up more than their fair share) and transmitting it.

one of the issues i see is the anti-vax people are out there counting this as a win because "see i told you vaccines don't work" because they're not recognizing the current vaccine was not developed to fight omicron and they'll continue to not get any covid vaccines despite the overwhelming evidence that the vaccine lowers your chances of 1) catching the virus, 2) being hospitalized once you have the virus, and 3) dying with the virus.
Neat. So how are people supposed to know all of this information, when people very high up in the government, within the last few weeks, have come out saying this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated? You and I knew it because we were able to put 2 and 2 together.

We started to realize that this vaccine was leaky last summer, yet people continued to say the vaccine would stop it. Then when Delta came along, it got too leaky to control that narrative, the story changed to say that your symptoms would be less severe. I believe that's true, but we have this guy continuing to blame the unvaccinated for the spread. Oh, and by the way, it's now in deer, cats, dogs and other animals. Guess we need to get them vaxxed, too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 86PSUPaul

psumacw

Well-Known Member
Sep 18, 2017
1,220
931
1
Neat. So how are people supposed to know all of this information, when people very high up in the government, within the last few weeks, have come out saying this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated? You and I knew it because we were able to put 2 and 2 together.

We started to realize that this vaccine was leaky last summer, yet people continued to say the vaccine would stop it. Then when Delta came along, it got too leaky to control that narrative, the story changed to say that your symptoms would be less severe. I believe that's true, but we have this guy continuing to blame the unvaccinated for the spread. Oh, and by the way, it's now in deer, cats, dogs and other animals. Guess we need to get them vaxxed, too.

because the moderna and pfizer studies were showing like 95% efficacy. even the bottom of the barrel J+J was like 65% effective. and we knew that over a year ago. it's like the saying "the best time to plant a tree is 10 years ago, but the second best time is right now". we would have been in a better spot if everyone got vaccinated as soon as they were eligible early last year, but it held true even last summer that getting vaccinated then would be better than not being vaccinated at all. so people rightly kept "saying get the shot, it will help."

this chart is a little bit clunky but it shows just how disparate the percentages are between share of population and share of cases/deaths. i don't know how you can look at this and conclude that the vaccine didn't work.

0nuyvip4dbb81.png
 

Cali_Nittany

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2016
4,572
9,678
1
I see this dumpster fire is still burning. I sit and contemplate at least five minutes everyday just staring at the title of this thread urging myself to just scroll by but nooooo I just have to come on and explore the mindless bulls... That people come up with that doesn't change a thing. What a cluster f... This thread has become. Can we transfer this whole thread to hr or do they have their own lmfao

Did you bother reading the f'in title of the thread? Literate much?

IuP.gif
 

AndEEss

Well-Known Member
Jul 7, 2020
818
1,464
1
Neat. So how are people supposed to know all of this information, when people very high up in the government, within the last few weeks, have come out saying this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated? You and I knew it because we were able to put 2 and 2 together.

We started to realize that this vaccine was leaky last summer, yet people continued to say the vaccine would stop it. Then when Delta came along, it got too leaky to control that narrative, the story changed to say that your symptoms would be less severe. I believe that's true, but we have this guy continuing to blame the unvaccinated for the spread. Oh, and by the way, it's now in deer, cats, dogs and other animals. Guess we need to get them vaxxed, too.

If the unvaccinated make up the majority of cases, the vast majority of hospitalizations and represent almost all of the deaths, yes, they are in fact the ones who are feeling most of the effects.

So, maybe the language should be, "The unvaccinated are far more likely to die. Good luck."

It would be a pretty amazing psychological operations campaign, results-wise, if the goal of the current administration was to shape the voting populace by inducing a response in both sides of the aisle that resulted in their base surviving and the other party's base contracting COVID at higher rates, being hospitalized at higher rates and dying at higher rates (which is what seems to be happening). Let Fauci be the punching bag, let Fox, OAN and others lampoon vaccination, put out some "mandates" to induce more resistance and indignation (because "freedom") and just sit back and watch.

And, unlike most conspiracy theories, it doesn't require much in the way of actual actions. You notice a trend in human behavior, make a decision, sign a couple of EOs and that's it. No men in suits behind grassy knolls needed. We've got partisan news, social media to do the persuasion and a highly transmissible virus to do the killing.

Now, do I actually believe that they are trying to do that? No. I think the current vaccination gap between left and right would be what it is, or thereabouts, regardless of who is in power. Donald Trump gets booed by supporters for suggesting they get vaccinated; Donald knows it's a numbers game and that current trends are not in his favor.

 
Last edited:

James P. Whitters III

Well-Known Member
Jun 1, 2007
1,625
4,708
1
Over population is severe and we badly need a huge population reduction (at least 50%) to save the planet. Anybody who is trying to "save lives" is certainly no friend of the human species and acting with only short sighted vision. The elephant in the room is still here. We have produced all of these masks and jab material at a huge environmental cost while pretending it is for the good of the population. False narrative certainly not supported by current climate data or current world population science. We have very screwed up priorities. We keep hearing about science, but what say we about the actual science? Anybody want to defend the idiotic position that a 5-10% world population cull would be a bad thing? We need to explore cost vs benefit from a long term perspective before we go destroying the planet in the name of saving lives. Let nature take the course it will take. Starvation of the entire species sounds quite a bit worse than a population cull through natural disease to me. Selfish fear today is screwing the children of the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: baccafarmer

Cali_Nittany

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2016
4,572
9,678
1
Over population is severe and we badly need a huge population reduction (at least 50%) to save the planet. Anybody who is trying to "save lives" is certainly no friend of the human species and acting with only short sighted vision. The elephant in the room is still here. We have produced all of these masks and jab material at a huge environmental cost while pretending it is for the good of the population. False narrative certainly not supported by current climate data or current world population science. We have very screwed up priorities. We keep hearing about science, but what say we about the actual science? Anybody want to defend the idiotic position that a 5-10% world population cull would be a bad thing? We need to explore cost vs benefit from a long term perspective before we go destroying the planet in the name of saving lives. Let nature take the course it will take. Starvation of the entire species sounds quite a bit worse than a population cull through natural disease to me. Selfish fear today is screwing the children of the future.

You gave me a good excuse to bust out this video:
 
  • Love
Reactions: Hotshoe

STAND with PRIDE

Well-Known Member
Sep 9, 2018
3,819
5,577
1
Over population is severe and we badly need a huge population reduction (at least 50%) to save the planet. Anybody who is trying to "save lives" is certainly no friend of the human species and acting with only short sighted vision. The elephant in the room is still here. We have produced all of these masks and jab material at a huge environmental cost while pretending it is for the good of the population. False narrative certainly not supported by current climate data or current world population science. We have very screwed up priorities. We keep hearing about science, but what say we about the actual science? Anybody want to defend the idiotic position that a 5-10% world population cull would be a bad thing? We need to explore cost vs benefit from a long term perspective before we go destroying the planet in the name of saving lives. Let nature take the course it will take. Starvation of the entire species sounds quite a bit worse than a population cull through natural disease to me. Selfish fear today is screwing the children of the future.
In summary, the problem with this world is there’s too many people on it.
 

James P. Whitters III

Well-Known Member
Jun 1, 2007
1,625
4,708
1
In summary, the problem with this world is there’s too many people on it.
Exactly. Population explosion is a dangerous thing. It is mentioned in theory but almost never actually addressed due to the sensitive nature of the subject. It just amazes me how silent our "experts " who repeatedly warn us about this have become during this Covid period. They should have embraced it from the git go and argued against any attempts to contain the spread. Nobody on either side of the vaccination debate is interested in real science.
 

IwasAwful

Active Member
Jan 17, 2020
33
64
1
Exactly. Population explosion is a dangerous thing. It is mentioned in theory but almost never actually addressed due to the sensitive nature of the subject. It just amazes me how silent our "experts " who repeatedly warn us about this have become during this Covid period. They should have embraced it from the git go and argued against any attempts to contain the spread. Nobody on either side of the vaccination debate is interested in real science.
Anyone have Thanos’s number? Snappity Snap! Thanos read up on his Malthus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rmg78

KCLion

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2001
8,967
1,515
1
Over population is severe and we badly need a huge population reduction (at least 50%) to save the planet. Anybody who is trying to "save lives" is certainly no friend of the human species and acting with only short sighted vision. The elephant in the room is still here. We have produced all of these masks and jab material at a huge environmental cost while pretending it is for the good of the population. False narrative certainly not supported by current climate data or current world population science. We have very screwed up priorities. We keep hearing about science, but what say we about the actual science? Anybody want to defend the idiotic position that a 5-10% world population cull would be a bad thing? We need to explore cost vs benefit from a long term perspective before we go destroying the planet in the name of saving lives. Let nature take the course it will take. Starvation of the entire species sounds quite a bit worse than a population cull through natural disease to me. Selfish fear today is screwing the children of the future.
Everyone is free to “fix” the problem.
 

crablegs1

Well-Known Member
Feb 27, 2009
487
739
1
because the moderna and pfizer studies were showing like 95% efficacy. even the bottom of the barrel J+J was like 65% effective. and we knew that over a year ago. it's like the saying "the best time to plant a tree is 10 years ago, but the second best time is right now". we would have been in a better spot if everyone got vaccinated as soon as they were eligible early last year, but it held true even last summer that getting vaccinated then would be better than not being vaccinated at all. so people rightly kept "saying get the shot, it will help."

this chart is a little bit clunky but it shows just how disparate the percentages are between share of population and share of cases/deaths. i don't know how you can look at this and conclude that the vaccine didn't work.

0nuyvip4dbb81.png
This chart is not getting the appreciation it deserves. Very clearly outlines the vaccine’s benefits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dogwelder

Dogwelder

Well-Known Member
Aug 1, 2013
6,903
15,051
1
This chart is not getting the appreciation it deserves. Very clearly outlines the vaccine’s benefits.
Yeah, but I know a guy who tested positive (without symptoms) even though he was vaccinated. So the chart probably means nothing. 🤔 I am a Hawkeye fan. 1 > 8. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: crablegs1

pawrestlersintn

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2013
14,755
21,376
1
This chart is not getting the appreciation it deserves. Very clearly outlines the vaccine’s benefits.
It is an interesting chart because it doesn't have anything to do with numbers of cases, hospitalizations or deaths.

Deaths by age:
Age group, Deaths, % of Deaths, % of Population
85+, 216,475, 25.9% ,2.01%
75-84, 214,501, 25.7% ,4.98%
65-74 190,641, 22.8% , 9.86%
50-64 156,098, 18.7%, 19.03%
40-49 36,305, 4.3%, 12.2%
30-39 15,105, 1.8%, 13.5%
18-29 5,119, 0.6%, 13.6%
0-17 710, 0.085%, 24.6%

So, 74.4% of the deaths have occurred in 16% of the population. By all means, if you are older, OR have comorbidities, get the vaccine. If you're both older and have comorbidities, and you don't have medical reasons for not getting the shot, by all means, get the shot faster.
 

pawrestlersintn

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2013
14,755
21,376
1
If the unvaccinated make up the majority of cases, the vast majority of hospitalizations and represent almost all of the deaths, yes, they are in fact the ones who are feeling most of the effects.



December was a tipping point. During December, Omicron went from something like 2% of cases to 96% of cases. That's important, because Omicron is less dangerous, despite being more contagious.

Now, here is some interesting data, which is more than, "Oh, I know this one guy..." Massachusetts, for the week of January 2-8 had 159,769 new cases. 82,466 of those were breakthrough cases.

 

Dogwelder

Well-Known Member
Aug 1, 2013
6,903
15,051
1
… Now, here is some interesting data, which is more than, "Oh, I know this one guy..." Massachusetts, for the week of January 2-8 had 159,769 new cases. 82,466 of those were breakthrough cases. …
Ha ha! I was saying something stupid to be sarcastic. You’re saying the same thing, but seriously! 🤣😂😅 Over 80,000 times a wrong argument is still a wrong argument!! :) This is why this forum is the wrong place to discuss science.
 
Last edited:

crablegs1

Well-Known Member
Feb 27, 2009
487
739
1
It is an interesting chart because it doesn't have anything to do with numbers of cases, hospitalizations or deaths.

Deaths by age:
Age group, Deaths, % of Deaths, % of Population
85+, 216,475, 25.9% ,2.01%
75-84, 214,501, 25.7% ,4.98%
65-74 190,641, 22.8% , 9.86%
50-64 156,098, 18.7%, 19.03%
40-49 36,305, 4.3%, 12.2%
30-39 15,105, 1.8%, 13.5%
18-29 5,119, 0.6%, 13.6%
0-17 710, 0.085%, 24.6%

So, 74.4% of the deaths have occurred in 16% of the population. By all means, if you are older, OR have comorbidities, get the vaccine. If you're both older and have comorbidities, and you don't have medical reasons for not getting the shot, by all means, get the shot faster.
But if you’re 18-29, being vaccinated eliminates almost 100% of the risk of death. Is the inherent risk smaller in that group, of course, but the vaccine still results in an even smaller residual risk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dogwelder

pawrestlersintn

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2013
14,755
21,376
1
Ha ha! I was saying something stupid to be sarcastic. You’re saying the same thing, but seriously! 🤣😂😅 Over 80,000 times a wrong argument is still a wrong argument!! :) This is why this forum is the wrong place to discuss science.
The point of the message was simply to point out to someone that his perception of vaccinated versus unvaccinated case rates was likely developed prior to December, and times, they are a changin'.
 

pawrestlersintn

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2013
14,755
21,376
1
So, I talked to a bunch of people this week at customer sites, where I hadn't been since my joyful covid-ful holidays. The following stories are meant for entertainment only, and are not meant to be representative of any underlying data.

Guy 1: 35ish, unvaxxed, has yet to have had covid, prior to this story. He's just living his life, being cautious, but not overly so. Saturday before Christmas, he gets injured at work. Due to the injury, he's required to get a drug test. He goes to the drug testing center, takes a number, and sits down in a roomful of patients. When he sits down, masked, he recognizes that most of the people are hacking, coughing, sneezing, and generally feeling miserable.

Sure enough, a few days after a negative drug test, he starts feeling sick. So, he calls his doctor, who sends him for a covid test. He goes to the place, and while waiting outside, he overhears discussions from other people who are there for covid testing, as well. One of the people, who says he is vaccinated, but is there for covid testing, eventually gets in his car and leaves. My friend only thinks, "Hey, one less person in line in front of me."

Ten minutes later, the car shows back up, and the guy has Starbucks in his hand. So, a guy who is likely covid positive goes to Starbucks, waits in line, spreads God knows how much virus, and comes back to wait for his test. At least he had his Double Ristretto Venti Nonfat Organic Chocolate Brownie Frappuccino Extra Hot with Foam and Whipped Cream Upside Down Double Blended. Quarantines don't start until you have a positive test, apparently, esp. when there's Starbucks involved.

Woman 1: 50ish, vaxxed. She hosted Thanksgiving dinner. Her family, all vaxxed; her brother's and sister's families, all unvaxxed. The next day, a member of her family comes down with it, followed by every member of her family. The unwashed others? Still have yet to get it. Moral of the story, maybe...you're gonna get it when it's your time to get it? Some people are luckier than others? Who knows.
 

psumacw

Well-Known Member
Sep 18, 2017
1,220
931
1
December was a tipping point. During December, Omicron went from something like 2% of cases to 96% of cases. That's important, because Omicron is less dangerous, despite being more contagious.

Now, here is some interesting data, which is more than, "Oh, I know this one guy..." Massachusetts, for the week of January 2-8 had 159,769 new cases. 82,466 of those were breakthrough cases.


my problem with this article is that it doesn't directly compare any of the breakthrough rates to unvaccinated rates. like this "Overall, 262,060 fully vaxxed people have tested positive for the virus, according to new data from the state Department of Public Health on Tuesday. That’s 5.1% of the more than 5.1 million fully vaxxed people in Massachusetts." ok, 5.1% sounds high but what is it for unvaccinated?

luckily they give us this little tidbit "Breakthrough hospitalizations have been accounting for about 40% of current COVID-19 hospitalizations in the last couple of weeks." with that information, and looking up the MA vaccination rate (source), we can conclude that the unvaccinated people are 4.5 times more likely to be hospitalized (60% of hospitalization from 25% of population vs 40% of hospitalizations from 75%).

it does take a small amount of critical thinking so i forgive you for missing it, but the conclusion should be that being vaccinated helps you stay out of the hospital.
 

1032004

Well-Known Member
Jan 3, 2019
669
406
1
So, I talked to a bunch of people this week at customer sites, where I hadn't been since my joyful covid-ful holidays. The following stories are meant for entertainment only, and are not meant to be representative of any underlying data.

Guy 1: 35ish, unvaxxed, has yet to have had covid, prior to this story. He's just living his life, being cautious, but not overly so. Saturday before Christmas, he gets injured at work. Due to the injury, he's required to get a drug test. He goes to the drug testing center, takes a number, and sits down in a roomful of patients. When he sits down, masked, he recognizes that most of the people are hacking, coughing, sneezing, and generally feeling miserable.

Sure enough, a few days after a negative drug test, he starts feeling sick. So, he calls his doctor, who sends him for a covid test. He goes to the place, and while waiting outside, he overhears discussions from other people who are there for covid testing, as well. One of the people, who says he is vaccinated, but is there for covid testing, eventually gets in his car and leaves. My friend only thinks, "Hey, one less person in line in front of me."

Ten minutes later, the car shows back up, and the guy has Starbucks in his hand. So, a guy who is likely covid positive goes to Starbucks, waits in line, spreads God knows how much virus, and comes back to wait for his test. At least he had his Double Ristretto Venti Nonfat Organic Chocolate Brownie Frappuccino Extra Hot with Foam and Whipped Cream Upside Down Double Blended. Quarantines don't start until you have a positive test, apparently, esp. when there's Starbucks involved.

Woman 1: 50ish, vaxxed. She hosted Thanksgiving dinner. Her family, all vaxxed; her brother's and sister's families, all unvaxxed. The next day, a member of her family comes down with it, followed by every member of her family. The unwashed others? Still have yet to get it. Moral of the story, maybe...you're gonna get it when it's your time to get it? Some people are luckier than others? Who knows.

How do you know the guy in line was sick? He may have just been getting a test to go on a flight or something.

If someone got sick "the next day," they probably caught it before the Thanksgiving dinner.
 

1032004

Well-Known Member
Jan 3, 2019
669
406
1
It is an interesting chart because it doesn't have anything to do with numbers of cases, hospitalizations or deaths.

Deaths by age:
Age group, Deaths, % of Deaths, % of Population
85+, 216,475, 25.9% ,2.01%
75-84, 214,501, 25.7% ,4.98%
65-74 190,641, 22.8% , 9.86%
50-64 156,098, 18.7%, 19.03%
40-49 36,305, 4.3%, 12.2%
30-39 15,105, 1.8%, 13.5%
18-29 5,119, 0.6%, 13.6%
0-17 710, 0.085%, 24.6%

So, 74.4% of the deaths have occurred in 16% of the population. By all means, if you are older, OR have comorbidities, get the vaccine. If you're both older and have comorbidities, and you don't have medical reasons for not getting the shot, by all means, get the shot faster.

Old people are more likely to die of anything...over 200k deaths in people under 65 is a lot!
 

pawrestlersintn

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2013
14,755
21,376
1
my problem with this article is that it doesn't directly compare any of the breakthrough rates to unvaccinated rates. like this "Overall, 262,060 fully vaxxed people have tested positive for the virus, according to new data from the state Department of Public Health on Tuesday. That’s 5.1% of the more than 5.1 million fully vaxxed people in Massachusetts." ok, 5.1% sounds high but what is it for unvaccinated?

luckily they give us this little tidbit "Breakthrough hospitalizations have been accounting for about 40% of current COVID-19 hospitalizations in the last couple of weeks." with that information, and looking up the MA vaccination rate (source), we can conclude that the unvaccinated people are 4.5 times more likely to be hospitalized (60% of hospitalization from 25% of population vs 40% of hospitalizations from 75%).

it does take a small amount of critical thinking so i forgive you for missing it, but the conclusion should be that being vaccinated helps you stay out of the hospital.


82,000 of 262,000 (31.3%) breakthrough cases occurred in the first week of January. Meanwhile, the first vaccine shipments were sent to Massachusetts 55 weeks ago. Let's say by the time they really got rolling, it has been 40 weeks where significant numbers of breakthroughs could be reported. So, the remaining 180,000 breakthrough cases that occurred in MA, averaged 4,500 per week. Also, it was 45,000 the prior week, so that's 48% of all breakthrough cases taking place in the last two weeks.

Yes, unvaccinated are more likely to avoid hospitalization and death than vaccinated. But this says nothing about the direction of total cases, or the demographics and health histories of those being hospitalized. And, I'll say it again: If you are older, or you have co-morbidities, go get the shot.
 

pawrestlersintn

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2013
14,755
21,376
1
How do you know the guy in line was sick? He may have just been getting a test to go on a flight or something.

If someone got sick "the next day," they probably caught it before the Thanksgiving dinner.

My friend is a fairly smart, observant guy. He knows if someone is hacking a lung out that that person is probably sick. How do you know when someone is sick?

Yes, if they got sick the next day, they probably got it before Thanksgiving. But, that also makes them contagious. Particularly to the unvaccinated, right? I mean four of the vaccinated family members got it, so someone was contagious.
 

86PSUPaul

Well-Known Member
Aug 17, 2017
3,444
4,151
1
The problem with the cart is where it says you are 53 times more likely, but if your odds are one in a million (just for arguments sake) increasing that by 53 times isn’t that much of a change. 1 in a million or 53 in a million is an incrrase, but not one that keeps me up at night.
 

1032004

Well-Known Member
Jan 3, 2019
669
406
1
My friend is a fairly smart, observant guy. He knows if someone is hacking a lung out that that person is probably sick. How do you know when someone is sick?

Yes, if they got sick the next day, they probably got it before Thanksgiving. But, that also makes them contagious. Particularly to the unvaccinated, right? I mean four of the vaccinated family members got it, so someone was contagious.

Your post didn’t say anything about the guy going to Starbucks having symptoms.

Yea, the person may have been contagious at Thanksgiving. But maybe not. Do the family members that got it live together? If so, seems possible the first person that got it wasn’t yet contagious at Thanksgiving but then spread it to their family later.
 

pawrestlersintn

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2013
14,755
21,376
1
Your post didn’t say anything about the guy going to Starbucks having symptoms.

Yea, the person may have been contagious at Thanksgiving. But maybe not. Do the family members that got it live together? If so, seems possible the first person that got it wasn’t yet contagious at Thanksgiving but then spread it to their family later.
I'm sure, as soon as the guests left at 6:00 PM, that family member immediately became contagious. Amazing. What are the odds? 👌🙄
 

psumacw

Well-Known Member
Sep 18, 2017
1,220
931
1
The problem with the cart is where it says you are 53 times more likely, but if your odds are one in a million (just for arguments sake) increasing that by 53 times isn’t that much of a change. 1 in a million or 53 in a million is an incrrase, but not one that keeps me up at night.

lol yeah but we could also (just for arguments sake) call the odds one in a hundred then 53 in a hundred absolutely would keep you up at night. which means that arbitrarily assigning odds is disingenuous to the argument and shouldn't be used to conclude anything
 
  • Like
Reactions: crablegs1

86PSUPaul

Well-Known Member
Aug 17, 2017
3,444
4,151
1
lol yeah but we could also (just for arguments sake) call the odds one in a hundred then 53 in a hundred absolutely would keep you up at night. which means that arbitrarily assigning odds is disingenuous to the argument and shouldn't be used to conclude anything
Except for the age group I chose that was 53 times the risk, the odds are much closer to 1 in a million than 1 in 100, heck, the odds for all age groups combined aren’t 1 in 100 since there is about a 99.96% chance of survival total. So my example is not disingenuous to the argument.
So how about 1 in a 100,000 versus 53 in a 100,000, does that make it closer for discussions sake and does that really change the odds of getting and dying?
 

crablegs1

Well-Known Member
Feb 27, 2009
487
739
1
Except for the age group I chose that was 53 times the risk, the odds are much closer to 1 in a million than 1 in 100, heck, the odds for all age groups combined aren’t 1 in 100 since there is about a 99.96% chance of survival total. So my example is not disingenuous to the argument.
So how about 1 in a 100,000 versus 53 in a 100,000, does that make it closer for discussions sake and does that really change the odds of getting and dying?
I guess who cares? Whatever the odds are, if there is a free, fast, and harmless way to nearly eliminate them entirely, why wouldn’t you?
 

PD4thespawn

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2016
516
727
1
December was a tipping point. During December, Omicron went from something like 2% of cases to 96% of cases. That's important, because Omicron is less dangerous, despite being more contagious.

Now, here is some interesting data, which is more than, "Oh, I know this one guy..." Massachusetts, for the week of January 2-8 had 159,769 new cases. 82,466 of those were breakthrough cases.


Maybe in 10 years we'll have that
We need an agree button
 

psumacw

Well-Known Member
Sep 18, 2017
1,220
931
1
Except for the age group I chose that was 53 times the risk, the odds are much closer to 1 in a million than 1 in 100, heck, the odds for all age groups combined aren’t 1 in 100 since there is about a 99.96% chance of survival total. So my example is not disingenuous to the argument.
So how about 1 in a 100,000 versus 53 in a 100,000, does that make it closer for discussions sake and does that really change the odds of getting and dying?

the odds for all age groups combined in the US is about 1 in 77 (849K deaths in 65.2M cases) or 1.3%. i think that 99.96% survival rate is 18-29 only.

even using your suspect number, 53 in 100,000 means 3.5 people would die at each psu wrestling home dual. 1 in 100,000 means there's a 1 in 15 change a single person would die at each psu wrestling home dual. i can't say i'd definitely go in the 2nd scenario, but i sure as heck wouldn't go in the first.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1032004 and AndEEss