COVID Thread Part Deux

[Two-Gun Pete]

3 hours ago, ptatc said:

This is why it's become political. If someone disagrees with a point of view, it's wrong and stooopid and from the other side of the aisle.

Bullshit. If someone assigns "political" meaning to non-political things, it is by definition, stooopid.

If I came to you as a patient, and told you that therapies meant to improve ROM are "political," you'd be entirely right to call my position "stoopid." Because ROM is not political, and nor are vaccines.

 

Giving any air to moronic ideas that non-political things are political only makes the world dumber and shittier.

 

You quoted a post of mine that replied to Greg's stoopud opinon that "folks who doubt vaccines and masks aren't going to change their minds."

I replied with examples of dumb fucks who only wanted vaccines when it was too late, like Phil Valentine and others, who are now rotting in their graves, thanks to their stoopidity. The sad part is that assholes like Phil Valentine probably got even dumber people killed among their viewerships/listenerships.

Edited September 14, 2021 by Two-Gun Pete

[StrangeSox]

3 hours ago, greg775 said:

I know some don't like Joe Rogan at all but he had an interesting podcast on how he threw everything including the kitchen sink at his Covid. Now he's rich and popular and I'm sure has doctors who will help him out in such a health problem, but if there are peeps who have an open mind and want to hear about how this one person treated his own covid and got well quickly, here's the pod. He used various drugs and was better quickly. He does say in the podcast he's is pondering suing CNN. I know some will dismiss, say it's Joe Rogan and not care. I'm not taking sides, just saying for those who like both sides of an issue, it's cool to hear Joe talk about his Covid case and medications. Peace out.     

 

 

Rogan got monoclonal antibody treatment, something that has actually been shown to be highly effective.

 

[greg775]

11 hours ago, BrianAnderson said:

This. slippery slope indeed. it opens up and allows interpretation of the next "global issue". If I had to take a guess? Global warming. Which is a never ending battle/war. Which can and may lead to a lot of liberties taken away in the name of science. 

The next global issue in my mind with my odds listed: Caveat, this is my opinion only.

10-1 odds: Hackers from enemy countries shut down U.S. grid and perhaps at same time attack our water. They do this in winter and it's not pretty.

5-1 odds: Another virus hits the entire world as this one has done. If not a different virus, a variant of this one and it's really really bad, bad nuff to shut everything down and wreak havoc on the health system for a long, long time.

3-1 odds: Earthquakes hit us hard. We've had hurricanes and tornadoes, earthquakes hit. Natural disasters/global warming, same ballpark.

On a positive note:

2-1 odds: The pandemic ends after most of the unvaccinated frankly catch covid. Let's hope most of the cases are mild and it's not that catastrophic as this disease ultimately is contracted by all unvacced at some point.

[Balta1701]

1 hour ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

Hey, does Ivermectin have full FDA approval for the treatment of COVID-19? How about Hydroxycloroquine?

 

Or are they both bullshit witchdoctor "cures" that are, at best "off label," or at worse, getting the terminally stoopud killed?

Hydroxychloroquine had an emergency use authorization last summer when there were no known treatments. It was revoked last fall once there was sufficient data showing it was useless and that the side effects had probably killed people. Ivermectin has never received such an authorization.

[The Beast]

1 hour ago, greg775 said:

2-1 odds: The pandemic ends after most of the unvaccinated frankly catch covid. Let's hope most of the cases are mild and it's not that catastrophic as this disease ultimately is contracted by all unvacced at some point.

I am hoping the pandemic ends when we reach whatever percentage of vaccinations are truly needed and sadly, the people who won’t get vaccinated and get infected by COVID. I would love to know what the numbers need to be and if we will ever get to a point where COVID-19 is in the background and it is not dominating the decisions most of us have to make in our lives.

[greg775]

47 minutes ago, The Beast said:

I am hoping the pandemic ends when we reach whatever percentage of vaccinations are truly needed and sadly, the people who won’t get vaccinated and get infected by COVID. I would love to know what the numbers need to be and if we will ever get to a point where COVID-19 is in the background and it is not dominating the decisions most of us have to make in our lives.

Almost everybody I know who has been traveling extensively of late (as much as pre-covid days) has caught Covid. All have been vaccinated but still report fairly nasty symptoms, though nothing to put 'em in the hospital. I still don't feel like traveling.

[raBBit]

14 hours ago, Tony said:

It's fairly straightforward.

https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/poll-finding/kff-covid-19-vaccine-monitor-profile-of-the-unvaccinated/

These figures are from June 2021 so a little dated, but only by a few months.

This was a poll done by NBC in late August as well:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/nbc-news-poll-shows-demographic-breakdown-vaccinated-u-s-n1277514

It seems like the "bigoted" idea of saying "Trump supporters are dumb and won't get the vax" checks out....

Overall, across these 42 states, the percent of White people who have received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose (52%) was roughly 1.2 times higher than the rate for Black people (43%) and 1.1 times higher than the rate for Hispanic people (48%) as of September 7, 2021

https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/latest-data-on-covid-19-vaccinations-race-ethnicity/

[StrangeSox]

There's lots of ways to break the data down. Overwhelmingly, of the 14% of Americans who say they definitely will not get a vaccine, they're strongly white and Republican.

There's a decent number of people who are not vaccinated but not strictly opposed to it. They tend to be poorer and lack health insurance, whatever race/politics they may have.

[he gone.]

1 hour ago, raBBit said:

Overall, across these 42 states, the percent of White people who have received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose (52%) was roughly 1.2 times higher than the rate for Black people (43%) and 1.1 times higher than the rate for Hispanic people (48%) as of September 7, 2021

https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/latest-data-on-covid-19-vaccinations-race-ethnicity/

I tried presenting stats on this earlier. It doesn't go well. Just a fair warning hah. 

I don't think it's that controversial to say it's a few things. 

Yes, republicans, those who in general want less government (though nowadays dems and republicans are almost the same minus a few hot button issues ... like a republican today was a democrat 40 years ago ... but i digress) are choosing not to get the vaccine. I don't think there's any denying that. now do i think its because they dont believe in science? i don't. i think it's more the angle of being skeptical of government bodies and weighing the risks of covid against other possibilities. 

and secondly, it's very much black and brown and poor people not taking it, which, historically would be democratic voters. 

all the above said, historically about 60% of people vote in any given election. that leaves 40% ... so applying RED V. BLUE leaves 40% of people unaccounted for. Oh weird ... there's about 40% unvaccinated. maybe 40% just are people who just want to be left alone. 

[Tony]

1 hour ago, raBBit said:

Overall, across these 42 states, the percent of White people who have received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose (52%) was roughly 1.2 times higher than the rate for Black people (43%) and 1.1 times higher than the rate for Hispanic people (48%) as of September 7, 2021

https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/latest-data-on-covid-19-vaccinations-race-ethnicity/

• White evangelicals: 59 percent
• Democrats: 88 percent
• Independents: 60 percent
• Republicans: 55 percent
• Republicans who support Trump more than party: 46 percent
• Republicans who support party more than Trump: 62 percent
• Democratic Sanders-Warren voters: 88 percent
• Democratic Biden voters: 87 percent
• Biden voters in 2020 general election: 91 percent
• Trump voters in 2020 general election: 50 percent

 

[raBBit]

4 hours ago, StrangeSox said:

There's lots of ways to break the data down. Overwhelmingly, of the 14% of Americans who say they definitely will not get a vaccine, they're strongly white and Republican.

There's a decent number of people who are not vaccinated but not strictly opposed to it. They tend to be poorer and lack health insurance, whatever race/politics they may have.

We don't have to worry about polls of 1,000 and what opinions those polls attribute to whoever. There is actual demographic data. Health insurance has nothing to do with this. 

4 hours ago, BrianAnderson said:

I tried presenting stats on this earlier. It doesn't go well. Just a fair warning hah. 

I don't think it's that controversial to say it's a few things. 

Yes, republicans, those who in general want less government (though nowadays dems and republicans are almost the same minus a few hot button issues ... like a republican today was a democrat 40 years ago ... but i digress) are choosing not to get the vaccine. I don't think there's any denying that. now do i think its because they dont believe in science? i don't. i think it's more the angle of being skeptical of government bodies and weighing the risks of covid against other possibilities. 

and secondly, it's very much black and brown and poor people not taking it, which, historically would be democratic voters. 

all the above said, historically about 60% of people vote in any given election. that leaves 40% ... so applying RED V. BLUE leaves 40% of people unaccounted for. Oh weird ... there's about 40% unvaccinated. maybe 40% just are people who just want to be left alone. 

I m well aware that stats aren't received well around here though I appreciate the warning and non-confrontational way you state your opinions. Around here is seems clear what people want - Don't let the actual results of vaccination efforts get in the way of of the opinions given in a poll that was given to a 1,000 people to give a corporate media outlet fodder for a given agenda they're trying to drive. 

3 hours ago, Tony said:

• White evangelicals: 59 percent
• Democrats: 88 percent
• Independents: 60 percent
• Republicans: 55 percent
• Republicans who support Trump more than party: 46 percent
• Republicans who support party more than Trump: 62 percent
• Democratic Sanders-Warren voters: 88 percent
• Democratic Biden voters: 87 percent
• Biden voters in 2020 general election: 91 percent
• Trump voters in 2020 general election: 50 percent

 

This is a poll of 1,000 people. It does not matter. It can be curated and crafted to fit any agenda the corporate-media-funded poll wants. If you're vaccinated, you'll remember they didn't ask you who you voted for or what party affiliation you had. It's also curious the subcategories they included above. Why didn't they have the counterpart to the "republicans who support Trump more than party" for the democrats - "Democrats who support Biden more than the party"? Anyone who has an inkling of experience in polling or data analysis can see how this is agenda-driven more than anything else. 

The information that I shared wasn't an analysis of .00000298597% of the population from a corporate media outlet, it was a significant reflection of the country's vaccine status outlining the results of vaccination efforts of 42 of the 50 states. What it shows is that the political and frankly bigoted rhetoric around here about who is unvaccinated, is not supported by anything other than political agendas and hatred. 

 

Edited September 14, 2021 by raBBit

[ptatc]

17 hours ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

Bullshit. If someone assigns "political" meaning to non-political things, it is by definition, stooopid.

If I came to you as a patient, and told you that therapies meant to improve ROM are "political," you'd be entirely right to call my position "stoopid." Because ROM is not political, and nor are vaccines.

 

Giving any air to moronic ideas that non-political things are political only makes the world dumber and shittier.

 

You quoted a post of mine that replied to Greg's stoopud opinon that "folks who doubt vaccines and masks aren't going to change their minds."

I replied with examples of dumb fucks who only wanted vaccines when it was too late, like Phil Valentine and others, who are now rotting in their graves, thanks to their stoopidity. The sad part is that assholes like Phil Valentine probably got even dumber people killed among their viewerships/listenerships.

Isn't that what you did by saying it is stoopid conservatives that think this way? You are assigning the opinion to a political group thus making it political.

I happen to agree with the majority of your statements but generalizing it to a political group, even if it is the majority, isn't inclusive of the entire group. 

[StrangeSox]

54 minutes ago, raBBit said:

We don't have to worry about polls of 1,000 and what opinions those polls attribute to whoever. There is actual demographic data. Health insurance has nothing to do with this. 

I m well aware that stats aren't received well around here though I appreciate the warning and non-confrontational way you state your opinions. Around here is seems clear what people want - Don't let the actual results of vaccination efforts get in the way of of the opinions given in a poll that was given to a 1,000 people to give a corporate media outlet fodder for a given agenda they're trying to drive. 

This is a poll of 1,000 people. It does not matter. It can be curated and crafted to fit any agenda the corporate-media-funded poll wants. If you're vaccinated, you'll remember they didn't ask you who you voted for or what party affiliation you had. It's also curious the subcategories they included above. Why didn't they have the counterpart to the "republicans who support Trump more than party" for the democrats - "Democrats who support Biden more than the party"? Anyone who has an inkling of experience in polling or data analysis can see how this is agenda-driven more than anything else. 

The information that I shared wasn't an analysis of .00000298597% of the population from a corporate media outlet, it was a significant reflection of the country's vaccine status outlining the results of vaccination efforts of 42 of the 50 states. What it shows is that the political and frankly bigoted rhetoric around here about who is unvaccinated, is not supported by anything other than political agendas and hatred. 

 

ok

[greg775]

More radio deaths. ... Looks like all these people were in a risk category (age). It's not a good way to die. I feel badly for everybody who has been affected by Covid, the living and the dead. Sad.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/conservative-radio-hosts-anti-vaccine-die-from-covid-184420178.html

[he gone.]

I mean, regardless of affiliations, i do think we can agree that media is skewed. I'm not sure why anybody would trust media on either end. The same reasons people who watch CNN don't believe/trust Fox News is the same exact reasons they shouldn't trust CNN. And vice versa. 

The model of news is clicks. that's how they get paid. Not many people want to read objective news. if they did, then naturally that model would be the most prevalent because people would read those articles. They dont, and we're left with what we have and left to dissect the nuggets we get. There are those who are more gullible, lazy, intuitive, naive, paranoid, better critical thinkers etc. than others which results in a message board like this and others across the internet. 

In the case of Covid it's pretty clear the narrative that is being driven, and anybody who questions or tries to think outside of the "norm" gets lambasted. there's not just one path to immunity and or/or staying healthy and out of the hospital, but based on the everyday news, one would be lead to believe that. 

Regardless if you are pro vaccine, pro natural immunity, or indifferent the science would indicate at this time that masks (real ones) and testing are the safest measure if you're trying to avoid spread. vaccinations are the safest if you're trying to avoid hospital. But if you listen to just the tv? 

It makes absolutely no sense, and does not do well for anybody when you have Fauci ignore or skate natural immunity questions. Same with ridiculous rules like being able to go to a Bulls game with a vaccine, no testing, but need a test if unvaccinated. In theory that "reduces" the chances of spread to various degrees, but by no means is it the solution they'd lead you to believe. Putting on masks at restaurants? the safest person is the hostess, after that? its theatrics to make people feel good about themselves. all those sanitation wipes everywhere nowadays? good for other diseases and viruses, Covid? ha. 

The world needs more people questioning things. That's science. Science is questioning things - aka hypothesizing and then testing and trying to determine the results. If you're not questioning the media, the government, those in power, etc then you're not being very smart. The world has always consolidated to a few, the history of freedom and democracy is very light. We've been around for a long, long time. Freedom hasn't been. Hoping this copys and pastes below. If not i provided the link ... that only goes back to 1816 in the chart ... i don't want to alarm anybody but prior to 1816 democracy wasn't a larger portion, it was even smaller. So really, we're talking about something new in the last 70 years. That's about as fragile as that gets, and STILL only 50% of the world .... so yah, covid? bad. but there may be bigger fish to fry, like the fragility of power and democracy. we're the exception, not the rule. and you see these places like australia falling apart, hong kong, etc. so forgive people like myself or rabbit for maybe questioning things ... because historically humans are bad at not letting power, money, etc. corrupt and consolidate to a few. 

<iframe src="https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-pop-by-political-regime?stackMode=relative&country=~OWID_WRL" loading="lazy" style="width: 100%; height: 600px; border: 0px none;"></iframe>

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-pop-by-political-regime?stackMode=relative&country=~OWID_WRL

if you're not questioning autocracys like china ... and where Covid came from ... how it was first reported that no way it was out of a lab .... and how they silenced those who questioned it ... deplatformed for asking the question ... to where we are now ... to how bio warfare as a very effective tool ... to cheap goods in china ... to everything, then frankly, you're not thinking enough. and maybe that suits you well, but it doesn't suit your children or your children's children very well and if our ancestors didn't do that critical thinking, then guess what? you wouldn't be so blessed to wake up on American soil, because they took a look at their lives and said, i gotta get out. this isn't right. And more poeple around here need to look at life through that lense than just simple jab = good and if not, toss the others aside. 

 

[CentralChamps21]

8 minutes ago, BrianAnderson said:

I mean, regardless of affiliations, i do think we can agree that media is skewed. I'm not sure why anybody would trust media on either end.

I've noticed a very big difference though. CNN and the broadcast networks are biased in choosing which facts/stories to emphasize and which ones to ignore. Someone uses a racial slur against a Democrat, it gets the full 4 hour primetime treatment. Someone uses a racial slur against a Republican and it just doesn't get mentioned. I don't often hear flat-out false information.

Fox News, and to an even greater extent Newsmax and OAN, present much more information that just isn't true, either deliberately or because they didn't bother to fact check.

[Two-Gun Pete]

2 hours ago, ptatc said:

Isn't that what you did by saying it is stoopid conservatives that think this way?  

Not really. 

Conspiracy theories, and outright lies are a feature of one political side, not a bug. QUICK, without using the google machine, find 3-4 woke liberal radio hosts that deny science, are anti-vax, and have died of COVID.

 

And remember, if its the truth, its NOT unfair.

Edited September 14, 2021 by Two-Gun Pete

[Two-Gun Pete]

49 minutes ago, WhiteSoxFan1993 said:

I've noticed a very big difference though. CNN and the broadcast networks are biased in choosing which facts/stories to emphasize and which ones to ignore. Someone uses a racial slur against a Democrat, it gets the full 4 hour primetime treatment. Someone uses a racial slur against a Republican and it just doesn't get mentioned. I don't often hear flat-out false information.

Fox News, and to an even greater extent Newsmax and OAN, present much more information that just isn't true, either deliberately or because they didn't bother to fact check.

THIS.

One side may have biases, whereas the other side outright bullshits you. And no, its not the same for both sides.

[Tony]

47 minutes ago, BrianAnderson said:

I mean, regardless of affiliations, i do think we can agree that media is skewed. I'm not sure why anybody would trust media on either end. The same reasons people who watch CNN don't believe/trust Fox News is the same exact reasons they shouldn't trust CNN. And vice versa. 

The model of news is clicks. that's how they get paid. Not many people want to read objective news. if they did, then naturally that model would be the most prevalent because people would read those articles. They dont, and we're left with what we have and left to dissect the nuggets we get. There are those who are more gullible, lazy, intuitive, naive, paranoid, better critical thinkers etc. than others which results in a message board like this and others across the internet. 

In the case of Covid it's pretty clear the narrative that is being driven, and anybody who questions or tries to think outside of the "norm" gets lambasted. there's not just one path to immunity and or/or staying healthy and out of the hospital, but based on the everyday news, one would be lead to believe that. 

Regardless if you are pro vaccine, pro natural immunity, or indifferent the science would indicate at this time that masks (real ones) and testing are the safest measure if you're trying to avoid spread. vaccinations are the safest if you're trying to avoid hospital. But if you listen to just the tv? 

It makes absolutely no sense, and does not do well for anybody when you have Fauci ignore or skate natural immunity questions. Same with ridiculous rules like being able to go to a Bulls game with a vaccine, no testing, but need a test if unvaccinated. In theory that "reduces" the chances of spread to various degrees, but by no means is it the solution they'd lead you to believe. Putting on masks at restaurants? the safest person is the hostess, after that? its theatrics to make people feel good about themselves. all those sanitation wipes everywhere nowadays? good for other diseases and viruses, Covid? ha. 

The world needs more people questioning things. That's science. Science is questioning things - aka hypothesizing and then testing and trying to determine the results. If you're not questioning the media, the government, those in power, etc then you're not being very smart. The world has always consolidated to a few, the history of freedom and democracy is very light. We've been around for a long, long time. Freedom hasn't been. Hoping this copys and pastes below. If not i provided the link ... that only goes back to 1816 in the chart ... i don't want to alarm anybody but prior to 1816 democracy wasn't a larger portion, it was even smaller. So really, we're talking about something new in the last 70 years. That's about as fragile as that gets, and STILL only 50% of the world .... so yah, covid? bad. but there may be bigger fish to fry, like the fragility of power and democracy. we're the exception, not the rule. and you see these places like australia falling apart, hong kong, etc. so forgive people like myself or rabbit for maybe questioning things ... because historically humans are bad at not letting power, money, etc. corrupt and consolidate to a few. 

<iframe src="https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-pop-by-political-regime?stackMode=relative&country=~OWID_WRL" loading="lazy" style="width: 100%; height: 600px; border: 0px none;"></iframe>

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-pop-by-political-regime?stackMode=relative&country=~OWID_WRL

if you're not questioning autocracys like china ... and where Covid came from ... how it was first reported that no way it was out of a lab .... and how they silenced those who questioned it ... deplatformed for asking the question ... to where we are now ... to how bio warfare as a very effective tool ... to cheap goods in china ... to everything, then frankly, you're not thinking enough. and maybe that suits you well, but it doesn't suit your children or your children's children very well and if our ancestors didn't do that critical thinking, then guess what? you wouldn't be so blessed to wake up on American soil, because they took a look at their lives and said, i gotta get out. this isn't right. And more poeple around here need to look at life through that lense than just simple jab = good and if not, toss the others aside. 

 

The sheer tonnage of bullshit in this post could sink a cruise liner. I say with no hyperbole that I really don't even know where to start with this, but I'll give it the old college try as I'm sitting in the airport killing time. 

Quote

The world needs more people questioning things. That's science. Science is questioning things - aka hypothesizing and then testing and trying to determine the results. If you're not questioning the media, the government, those in power, etc then you're not being very smart.

That...isn't science. There is a large difference between the scientific study by someone or a group of people......and a group of people going to feed stores putting horse paste on crackers because they don't "trust" the media but will trust the guy down the street who he follows on Facebook that posts wacky meme's. 

You of course are painting with an incredibly broad brush which really accomplishes nothing in this case. Who here has said they totally trust the media, totally trust the government? Who's making that argument? But not having full faith in those two institutions doesn't then mean every single person in the media or every single person in politics is lying. 

From the data I've gathered from sources I trust, I made the determination the vaccine was by far the safest way to protect myself and those around me. That doesn't make me a "sheep." It makes the people not getting the vaccine because "they don't like being told what to do" assholes. 

Everyone has the freedom to make their own decisions. That doesn't make them right. 

 

[Two-Gun Pete]

18 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

Hydroxychloroquine had an emergency use authorization last summer when there were no known treatments. It was revoked last fall once there was sufficient data showing it was useless and that the side effects had probably killed people. Ivermectin has never received such an authorization.

So, IOW, for some, untested witchdoctor "cures" don't need FDA approval, but vaccines DO need approval. Also, for some, they "don't trust the government and big pharma," but they need the FDA, a government agency, to approve a vaccine before they'll take one. Also, they need to consult Dr Google to "do their own research," but fully educated/trained/licensed physicians and medical professionals can't be trusted.

Got it. Thanks, man!

Edited September 14, 2021 by Two-Gun Pete

[Balta1701]

10 hours ago, raBBit said:

We don't have to worry about polls of 1,000 and what opinions those polls attribute to whoever. There is actual demographic data. Health insurance has nothing to do with this. 

I m well aware that stats aren't received well around here though I appreciate the warning and non-confrontational way you state your opinions. Around here is seems clear what people want - Don't let the actual results of vaccination efforts get in the way of of the opinions given in a poll that was given to a 1,000 people to give a corporate media outlet fodder for a given agenda they're trying to drive. 

This is a poll of 1,000 people. It does not matter. It can be curated and crafted to fit any agenda the corporate-media-funded poll wants. If you're vaccinated, you'll remember they didn't ask you who you voted for or what party affiliation you had. It's also curious the subcategories they included above. Why didn't they have the counterpart to the "republicans who support Trump more than party" for the democrats - "Democrats who support Biden more than the party"? Anyone who has an inkling of experience in polling or data analysis can see how this is agenda-driven more than anything else. 

The information that I shared wasn't an analysis of .00000298597% of the population from a corporate media outlet, it was a significant reflection of the country's vaccine status outlining the results of vaccination efforts of 42 of the 50 states. What it shows is that the political and frankly bigoted rhetoric around here about who is unvaccinated, is not supported by anything other than political agendas and hatred. 

 

So everyone, I would like to present this as an absolutely excellent example of how to mislead with statistics. It is not lying, but it is a statistic presented without important context. 

What context is missing? That there is a huge bias in who has gotten the vaccine by age. Over 80% of people in the US above age 50 have gotten at least 1 shot, according to the CDC numbers (note some bias is possible because some states do not report). 

At the same time, the population over age 50 is overwhelmingly white compared to the average of the country. To say this another way, the average age of a white person in this country is 58, while for a minority it is 27 (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/07/30/most-common-age-among-us-racial-ethnic-groups/). 

That means...if a young person is less likely to be vaccinated...it will require that minorities are less likely to be vaccinated as a consequence, because younger people are more diverse. Especially considering that most under 12 cannot legally be vaccinated right now, it is effectively required that the vaccination rate among black people will be lower than white.

It is not the easiest to work across statistical groups from the Census to the CDC since they aren't counting everyone the same way, and there are some biases in missing people from the CDC not counted. But, if you try to correct for age - it accounts for at least 7% of the difference between those ethnic groups. It may even be higher - if the states with lots of unvaccinated White People, like Texas, are selectively not reporting data to the CDC, which I believe is true.

In other words, if you correct for age - effectively the entire difference between White and Black people goes away, and the vaccination rates are, within error of 9 missing states - effectively identical. The odds of a 30 year old white person being vaccinated are similar to those of a 30 year old black person. The odds of a 30 year old Hispanic person being vaccinated appear to be higher than both others. 

While every group needs to improve, the biggest thing we need to do is address the age group issue. Given that the problem is focused in the ages under 50, particularly the working age population - adding in mandates in workplaces and schools is a strongly supported way to solve this problem. Similarly, getting approval for the vaccine for younger age populations is required as well - as that cannot be fixed without doing so.

[The Beast]

8 hours ago, BrianAnderson said:

I mean, regardless of affiliations, i do think we can agree that media is skewed. I'm not sure why anybody would trust media on either end. The same reasons people who watch CNN don't believe/trust Fox News is the same exact reasons they shouldn't trust CNN. And vice versa. 

The model of news is clicks. that's how they get paid. Not many people want to read objective news. if they did, then naturally that model would be the most prevalent because people would read those articles. They dont, and we're left with what we have and left to dissect the nuggets we get. There are those who are more gullible, lazy, intuitive, naive, paranoid, better critical thinkers etc. than others which results in a message board like this and others across the internet. 

In the case of Covid it's pretty clear the narrative that is being driven, and anybody who questions or tries to think outside of the "norm" gets lambasted. there's not just one path to immunity and or/or staying healthy and out of the hospital, but based on the everyday news, one would be lead to believe that. 

Regardless if you are pro vaccine, pro natural immunity, or indifferent the science would indicate at this time that masks (real ones) and testing are the safest measure if you're trying to avoid spread. vaccinations are the safest if you're trying to avoid hospital. But if you listen to just the tv? 

It makes absolutely no sense, and does not do well for anybody when you have Fauci ignore or skate natural immunity questions. Same with ridiculous rules like being able to go to a Bulls game with a vaccine, no testing, but need a test if unvaccinated. In theory that "reduces" the chances of spread to various degrees, but by no means is it the solution they'd lead you to believe. Putting on masks at restaurants? the safest person is the hostess, after that? its theatrics to make people feel good about themselves. all those sanitation wipes everywhere nowadays? good for other diseases and viruses, Covid? ha. 

The world needs more people questioning things. That's science. Science is questioning things - aka hypothesizing and then testing and trying to determine the results. If you're not questioning the media, the government, those in power, etc then you're not being very smart. The world has always consolidated to a few, the history of freedom and democracy is very light. We've been around for a long, long time. Freedom hasn't been. Hoping this copys and pastes below. If not i provided the link ... that only goes back to 1816 in the chart ... i don't want to alarm anybody but prior to 1816 democracy wasn't a larger portion, it was even smaller. So really, we're talking about something new in the last 70 years. That's about as fragile as that gets, and STILL only 50% of the world .... so yah, covid? bad. but there may be bigger fish to fry, like the fragility of power and democracy. we're the exception, not the rule. and you see these places like australia falling apart, hong kong, etc. so forgive people like myself or rabbit for maybe questioning things ... because historically humans are bad at not letting power, money, etc. corrupt and consolidate to a few. 

<iframe src="https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-pop-by-political-regime?stackMode=relative&country=~OWID_WRL" loading="lazy" style="width: 100%; height: 600px; border: 0px none;"></iframe>

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-pop-by-political-regime?stackMode=relative&country=~OWID_WRL

if you're not questioning autocracys like china ... and where Covid came from ... how it was first reported that no way it was out of a lab .... and how they silenced those who questioned it ... deplatformed for asking the question ... to where we are now ... to how bio warfare as a very effective tool ... to cheap goods in china ... to everything, then frankly, you're not thinking enough. and maybe that suits you well, but it doesn't suit your children or your children's children very well and if our ancestors didn't do that critical thinking, then guess what? you wouldn't be so blessed to wake up on American soil, because they took a look at their lives and said, i gotta get out. this isn't right. And more poeple around here need to look at life through that lense than just simple jab = good and if not, toss the others aside. 

 

What it all boils down to is, are people on either end of the political spectrum digging in to the opposite side’s viewpoint? Are they reading more than one source from different outlets and commentators? If people fail to review different sources and listen to alternative viewpoints, that is a problem. But once they do, it’s up to them to decide what is correct. At least then they would have considered someone’s perspective they disagree with.

I would consider the lab leak argument but I also don’t really care about the origin and seeing Paul hammer away at Fauci when I want solutions to end the  pandemic. I’ll consider research I don’t agree with, but it’s going to take more than one person to convince me that a way aside from vaccines is the right way to go. And it would take some understanding from people who disagree with me (in terms of reviewing multiple sources, how science can evolve, not just reposting memes they believe support their argument, etc) for me to think that they are considering my beliefs for me to consider theirs. This is more about policy and politics than the pandemic but it still is how I approach discussion with the other side, even though it rarely is productive.

[greg775]

9 hours ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

THIS.

One side may have biases, whereas the other side outright bullshits you. And no, its not the same for both sides.

What if I said, I disagree? Calm discussion or dismiss with a brief reprimandish type comment? The world is meant for disagreements and discussion. We have so little of it now. Just hate (not saying you) even among relatives.

Edited September 15, 2021 by greg775

[greg775]

2 hours ago, The Beast said:

What it all boils down to is, are people on either end of the political spectrum digging in to the opposite side’s viewpoint? Are they reading more than one source from different outlets and commentators?

I am and it's funny as all get out. I read CNN website and Fox on my phone several times a day and laugh my butt off at the differences. ie what the sites cover on a given day and what they don't. Also the biased wording in the stories, albeit "some" correctly have the word "opinion" on them. Some don't. Suffice it to say both CNN and Fox have agendas and they are hilarious to follow. Try it.

[The Beast]

6 hours ago, greg775 said:

I am and it's funny as all get out. I read CNN website and Fox on my phone several times a day and laugh my butt off at the differences. ie what the sites cover on a given day and what they don't. Also the biased wording in the stories, albeit "some" correctly have the word "opinion" on them. Some don't. Suffice it to say both CNN and Fox have agendas and they are hilarious to follow. Try it.

That’s not what I am taking about. I’m saying people need to read different sources and consider both perspectives instead of focusing on what is covered and what is not. I couldn’t care less about their agendas.