I don't think I've ever even heard any of those quotes attributed to Walt. Walt was many things, but I don't think he was known particularly for coining witticisms. If anything, he was more a straight-talker.
What parts do you think are hogwash?
A year ago, I thought things would be back to normal by July 2020. I was looking at the Univ of Washington model, which showed essentially no cases or hospitalizations by then. Which probably makes that model the worst model ever made by anyone
A year ago, I thought things would be back to normal by July 2020. I was looking at the Univ of Washington model, which showed essentially no cases or hospitalizations by then. Which probably makes that model the worst model ever made by anyone
But hope springs eternal, so I find myself dreaming about a mask-free July 2021!
That model made some assumptions, chief was that we would take measures to limit the spread. We half assed thatA year ago, I thought things would be back to normal by July 2020. I was looking at the Univ of Washington model, which showed essentially no cases or hospitalizations by then. Which probably makes that model the worst model ever made by anyone
But hope springs eternal, so I find myself dreaming about a mask-free July 2021!
Understatement of the year IMHO
I’ll take 80%
Let's hope it's a number way lower than 95%. Otherwise, it's going to be a rough ride.
Thank you. I'm not just some crazy person making stuff up, but it's got a real basis. Always good to know oneself isn't losing it, at least not about this.In the words of someone in the field: (Though he works more with birds)
Matt Koci, a virologist and immunologist:
Vaccine Q&A: Vaccination Rates and New Mutations of the Virus
Let's talk about mutations to the virus that causes COVID-19.news.ncsu.edu
One key point he does not really address is that the selection pressure is greater as there are more vaccinated, while when the amount of virus is great there is more chances of mutations. A mutation whose only advantage is that it can infect the vaccinated will not have a evolutionary advantage if it isn't likely to infect someone who is vaccinated. So the risk when there is few vaccinated is lower because a mutation is less likely to run into the vaccinated vs unvaccinated, and it is low when there are lots of vaccinated but little virus around. The transition from the first state to the second has the higher risk of a mutated virus finding a vaccinated host for selection bias to work. So shorter that transition time is the better.
Expect it to increase after yesterday/last night.
Well, Disney fixed that last argument by having parks open for only 10 hours.Its like watching a drop to close ride warrior debate with a parent of 3 kids under 5 the best strategy for a magic kingdom day. The first doesn't understand why anyone would leave the park at noon for 4 hours, a swim, and a nap. While the second doesn't understand how anyone could spend 12, 16, or more hours in a row inside the park.
Ron's going to be suing himself...
Ron's going to be suing himself...
School Immunization Requirements | Florida Department of Health
Information regarding Florida's immunization requirements for school-aged children.www.floridahealth.gov
Have any Covid vaccines been approved by the FDA for school aged children? Until then, no self inflicted lawsuit will take place.Ron's going to be suing himself...
School Immunization Requirements | Florida Department of Health
Information regarding Florida's immunization requirements for school-aged children.
But that's just the thing...the rest WILL suffer because of a lack of action by others. Allowing people to be vaccine-free ensures that the virus will mutate with a risk of becoming a vaccine-resistant virus, putting us back at square one.
Desantis of FL cannot be so foolish to not recognize that Tourism is the #1 industry in FL. Vaccine passports with visitors coming from all over the world to visit the Sunshine State is necessary.
The "why" has always been muddled. Without getting into the "they lied" v. "changing science" debate, I remember seeing a newscast early on where we were being told that it's not necessary to wear face masks. Behind the newscasters a large screen was showing scenes from China, Italy, etc. where everyone was wearing masks. I remember thinking at the time that we're not physiologically different, so was the difference in advice based on our scientists knowing more than these other countries about the virus and how it spread? a belief that the virus wouldn't spread here? wanting to avoid mask-hoarding on the same scale as toilet paper and cleaning supplies? We weren't told why. Then a few weeks later our surgeon general was on TV showing people how to make a mask out of a handkerchief and two rubber bands. I was fine with the new message, but disappointed in what appeared to be the earlier, unexplained manipulation.Let's hope it's a number way lower than 95%. Otherwise, it's going to be a rough ride.
Thank you. I'm not just some crazy person making stuff up, but it's got a real basis. Always good to know oneself isn't losing it, at least not about this.
This just highlights how poor the information is that comes out with the guidelines. Plus how extra poor the reporting of that information is. In the beginning, it was kind of obvious, prevent all kinds of interactions to stop infected people from passing the virus on, keep yourself safe and don't give it to someone else. But, now, the guidance has two conflicting messages at the individual level. First, get the vaccine it'll protect you and you probably cannot give it to someone else. But, also, still prevent all kinds of interactions with anyone you cannot be sure isn't infected, well maybe just 1 person at a time.
That leaves us speculating on all kinds of stuff. Like, if the first is good, why does someone need to do the second? And, if someone still needs to do the second, what's the point of getting the first at the individual level. What's the reason for the single household exception? Is that exception creating risk to goal the guideline is supporting? Presumably, the exception creates very little extra risk for a very large value reward and that's why it's worth having, but we have no idea. If we knew the reasons, it would be possible to determine the added risk to expanding it and how far it could be expanded or why not, guidance about those impacts. (Obviously at public health level, the point of getting the vaccine is to end the pandemic.) If they published the reasons behind the guidance, people would be able to understand why the guidance matters. Something like "this guidance is to achieve X goal". Then, we could debate if those goals had value or not.
At a high level, some of this is more marketing related that real informative too. Things like the 100 days of masking, or 100 million shots in 100 days. I don't think those values were chosen for actual goals. As many many pages here have pointed out, 100 days may not end all mask, and 100 million shots was "to aggressive on the first day, but really a way to small goal by day 3". I think these were more like slogans and jingles. 100 in 100 is good marketing. It's easy to repeat and sounds like a sales pitch. We may debate their value as real metrics, but I don't think they were ever intended to be the real metric, just a marketing slogan.
We're missing key information surrounding the guidelines. Then we all color our views based on both our guessing of the unstated goals, our thoughts on if those goals aren't reached, and our desires for what we want. With different unstated goals, we end up talking past each other.
Its like watching a drop to close ride warrior debate with a parent of 3 kids under 5 the best strategy for a magic kingdom day. The first doesn't understand why anyone would leave the park at noon for 4 hours, a swim, and a nap. While the second doesn't understand how anyone could spend 12, 16, or more hours in a row inside the park.
