The Coronavirus, not the beer
- Thread starter Runnin
- Start date
sturg33
I
Darn.
I guess silence and gaze aversion is the way in order to relentlessly push the agenda
Makes you wonder how these tyrants are being elected.
Oh yeah, Cali rejected a much higher rate of signatures for the recall then they did for their elections.
And then you have the left having conniptions because ballots are finally being inspected.
Never underestimate how corrupt and evil these leftist politicians are.
Oh yeah, Cali rejected a much higher rate of signatures for the recall then they did for their elections.
And then you have the left having conniptions because ballots are finally being inspected.
Never underestimate how corrupt and evil these leftist politicians are.
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/04/the-disastrous-jj-pause.html
We were told that the J&J pause was necessary to prevent vaccine hesitancy. I never understood the certainty people expressed on this point, even people who were relatively good on other issues. In anycase, as the excellent Daniel Bier argues, the best explanation for the data right now is that the J&J pause increased vaccine hesitancy.
Could the plunge timing have been a coincidence? Perhaps the eager had already gotten their vaccinations, leaving only the less eager and more hesitant. Maybe. But note that younger people were getting vaccinated rapidly before the pause and at increasing rates in line with the rates of the older people who had been vaccinated before them. But then the vaccination rates of the young plummeted, just as for the old. In other words, the plunge started in all age groups at the same time but at very different levels of vaccination. The similar timing across age groups is easy to explain if it was the J&J pause (everyone saw the pause at the same time) but it requires multiple coincidences to explain why every age group would reach their hesitancy point at different levels of vaccination but at the same time.
My view is that neither the CDC nor the FDA should be playing psychological games with the public. Just give it to us straight. In this case, since there was never much doubt that the J&J vaccine was much safer than COVID, a bulletin to physicians would have been appropriate to the circumstances.
We were told that the J&J pause was necessary to prevent vaccine hesitancy. I never understood the certainty people expressed on this point, even people who were relatively good on other issues. In anycase, as the excellent Daniel Bier argues, the best explanation for the data right now is that the J&J pause increased vaccine hesitancy.
Could the plunge timing have been a coincidence? Perhaps the eager had already gotten their vaccinations, leaving only the less eager and more hesitant. Maybe. But note that younger people were getting vaccinated rapidly before the pause and at increasing rates in line with the rates of the older people who had been vaccinated before them. But then the vaccination rates of the young plummeted, just as for the old. In other words, the plunge started in all age groups at the same time but at very different levels of vaccination. The similar timing across age groups is easy to explain if it was the J&J pause (everyone saw the pause at the same time) but it requires multiple coincidences to explain why every age group would reach their hesitancy point at different levels of vaccination but at the same time.
My view is that neither the CDC nor the FDA should be playing psychological games with the public. Just give it to us straight. In this case, since there was never much doubt that the J&J vaccine was much safer than COVID, a bulletin to physicians would have been appropriate to the circumstances.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/04/the-disastrous-jj-pause.html
We were told that the J&J pause was necessary to prevent vaccine hesitancy. I never understood the certainty people expressed on this point, even people who were relatively good on other issues. In anycase, as the excellent Daniel Bier argues, the best explanation for the data right now is that the J&J pause increased vaccine hesitancy.
Could the plunge timing have been a coincidence? Perhaps the eager had already gotten their vaccinations, leaving only the less eager and more hesitant. Maybe. But note that younger people were getting vaccinated rapidly before the pause and at increasing rates in line with the rates of the older people who had been vaccinated before them. But then the vaccination rates of the young plummeted, just as for the old. In other words, the plunge started in all age groups at the same time but at very different levels of vaccination. The similar timing across age groups is easy to explain if it was the J&J pause (everyone saw the pause at the same time) but it requires multiple coincidences to explain why every age group would reach their hesitancy point at different levels of vaccination but at the same time.
My view is that neither the CDC nor the FDA should be playing psychological games with the public. Just give it to us straight. In this case, since there was never much doubt that the J&J vaccine was much safer than COVID, a bulletin to physicians would have been appropriate to the circumstances.
I'm curious. Doesn't a pause introduce a supply side issue as well as possible demand side? And wouldn't that make it difficult to infer what is causing the slowdown in vaccination rates?
I'm not arguing the pause was wise. Just that causal inference is complicated in this kind of situation.
sturg33
I
If withholding freedom from people until they inject themselves with an unnecessary drug isn't tyranny, then I dont think there is a level in which you would agree tyranny exists.
Except the imaginary pretend tyranny you cried endlessly about for 4 years
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
We found that the lowest risk was found among those with a BMI of 23, at which point the risk increased linearly, around 5% higher risk of hospital admission, 10% higher risk of ICU admission, and 4% of death per each unit increase in BMI.
People with a BMI under 23, which includes people who are underweight (BMI below 18.5) were also at risk of COVID-related hospital admission and death. This could be linked to frailty associated with having a low body weight.
Notably, the effect of excess weight on the risk of severe COVID was greatest in young people aged 20 to 39 years of age, and decreased after age 60. Excess weight had very little effect on the risk of severe COVID in people aged over 80 years.
https://theconversation.com/severe-...stly-be-explained-by-obesity-new-study-159072
interesting...it has long been known that being slightly overweight (not obese) increases life expectancy of people over 60
People with a BMI under 23, which includes people who are underweight (BMI below 18.5) were also at risk of COVID-related hospital admission and death. This could be linked to frailty associated with having a low body weight.
Notably, the effect of excess weight on the risk of severe COVID was greatest in young people aged 20 to 39 years of age, and decreased after age 60. Excess weight had very little effect on the risk of severe COVID in people aged over 80 years.
https://theconversation.com/severe-...stly-be-explained-by-obesity-new-study-159072
interesting...it has long been known that being slightly overweight (not obese) increases life expectancy of people over 60
acesfull86
Well-known member
It’s a fair point...I read another article citing this data saying that there was a slowdown in Moderna & Pfizer first doses post-J&J pause, but it didn’t supply the numbers
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
I love the fence you straddle by trying to play both sides of the covid vaccine lol
Dude, you’re ranting about menthol cigs as tyranny. I don’t think you have a grasp on tyranny lol
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://reason.com/2021/04/30/tepid-reopenings-are-producing-the-most-absurd-pandemic-regulations-yet/
Earlier this week, Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser issued an order eliminating some restrictions on restaurants, permitting live entertainment, and expanding capacity for retailers and other businesses. Come May 1, District dining rooms be allowed to seat 10 people per table (up from the current six), while restaurants can begin to host live entertainment without first having to obtain a special waiver.
Actual concert halls will also be allowed to reopen at 25 percent capacity or 500 people, whichever is less. Retailers deemed "nonessential" will see their own permitted capacity rise from 25 to 50 percent.
While individual party sizes at restaurants are increasing, for instance, restaurants' indoor capacity will stay at 25 percent. A midnight curfew for these businesses will remain in place as well.
People seated outdoors will be freed from the requirement to order food with any alcohol. Should you opt to sit inside, however, you will need to buy a snack while you're sipping on your beverage.
The restrictions on newly legal live entertainment come with even more micromanagement.
Bowser's order allows live music for outdoor diners, and for other forms of live entertainment, like comedy or trivia nights, to be performed inside for seated patrons. Indoor live entertainment can't be so loud that patrons would need to raise their voices above a conversational level, per the mayor's order.
The city's Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration (ABRA) has concocted more rules still to bring the mayor's orders into effect. Under ABRA regulations, performers must stay six feet away from other performers within a designated "performance area."
That performance area, meanwhile, can hold 10 people if it's inside, or five if it's outdoors. That might help cut down on outdoor noise volumes but would seem to cut against the public health goal of pushing more people and activities into well-ventilated outdoor spaces.
At a minimum, prog rock bands playing outside will be put in the impossible position of choosing between their rhythm guitarist and keyboardist.
All live entertainers must remain masked, per ABRA rules, unless doing so inhibits their ability to perform. Unmasked performers, such as vocalists, trombonists, and harmonica players, however, will have to be 18 feet from seated patrons. Their face-covered bandmates can get as close as 12 feet.
"No dance floors can be constructed or used for dancing," reads ABRA's guidance, which also says that games like pingpong, pinball, and pool will remain prohibited unless they can be played safely by seated patrons.
—————
Some mighty impressive science out of DC.
Earlier this week, Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser issued an order eliminating some restrictions on restaurants, permitting live entertainment, and expanding capacity for retailers and other businesses. Come May 1, District dining rooms be allowed to seat 10 people per table (up from the current six), while restaurants can begin to host live entertainment without first having to obtain a special waiver.
Actual concert halls will also be allowed to reopen at 25 percent capacity or 500 people, whichever is less. Retailers deemed "nonessential" will see their own permitted capacity rise from 25 to 50 percent.
While individual party sizes at restaurants are increasing, for instance, restaurants' indoor capacity will stay at 25 percent. A midnight curfew for these businesses will remain in place as well.
People seated outdoors will be freed from the requirement to order food with any alcohol. Should you opt to sit inside, however, you will need to buy a snack while you're sipping on your beverage.
The restrictions on newly legal live entertainment come with even more micromanagement.
Bowser's order allows live music for outdoor diners, and for other forms of live entertainment, like comedy or trivia nights, to be performed inside for seated patrons. Indoor live entertainment can't be so loud that patrons would need to raise their voices above a conversational level, per the mayor's order.
The city's Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration (ABRA) has concocted more rules still to bring the mayor's orders into effect. Under ABRA regulations, performers must stay six feet away from other performers within a designated "performance area."
That performance area, meanwhile, can hold 10 people if it's inside, or five if it's outdoors. That might help cut down on outdoor noise volumes but would seem to cut against the public health goal of pushing more people and activities into well-ventilated outdoor spaces.
At a minimum, prog rock bands playing outside will be put in the impossible position of choosing between their rhythm guitarist and keyboardist.
All live entertainers must remain masked, per ABRA rules, unless doing so inhibits their ability to perform. Unmasked performers, such as vocalists, trombonists, and harmonica players, however, will have to be 18 feet from seated patrons. Their face-covered bandmates can get as close as 12 feet.
"No dance floors can be constructed or used for dancing," reads ABRA's guidance, which also says that games like pingpong, pinball, and pool will remain prohibited unless they can be played safely by seated patrons.
—————
Some mighty impressive science out of DC.