-
[QUOTE=GeoFisher;582850]UM you do REALIZE that most of the people infected these past two quarters were vaccinated.
So your ******** Vaccine thoughts are just that.......
Numbers are going down due to IMMUNITY, and I would not base that on vaccine immunity.
Vaccine Immunity is behind natural immunity by probably a year.[/QUOTE]
"by PROBABLY a year....
yeah as a rule I dismiss anyone that tries to argue with "probably"
AGAIN geo I of all people KNOW people who are vaccinated have been infected.
You are so quick to disparage people with so much more knowledge and experience and downright expertise in the field of virology.
And somehow you are the only one that's right and you seriously don't have a fucking clue . you get the same information everyone else does....second hand.
you are not in the know you are being fed the same ******** as the rest of us.
-
and to provide an example of your pompous arrogance...
in one thread you proclaimed thar one person could be tested as positive multiple times and it counted as multiple cases.
and then you blab about half the cases are vaccinated. how in the **** would you know??? if case counts are so inaccurate???
cherry pick to fit your agenda??
come on man for fucks sake will you stay on one side of the information fence???
you've got a lot of nerve calling someone else's opinion ********.
I KNOW you are an immensely intelligent man but God **** you say some stupid **** sometimes
-
[QUOTE=stripernut1;582853]and to provide an example of your pompous arrogance...
in one thread you proclaimed thar one person could be tested as positive multiple times and it counted as multiple cases.
and then you blab about half the cases are vaccinated. how in the **** would you know??? if case counts are so inaccurate???
cherry pick to fit your agenda??
come on man for fucks sake will you stay on one side of the information fence???
you've got a lot of nerve calling someone else's opinion ********.
I KNOW you are an immensely intelligent man but God **** you say some stupid **** sometimes[/QUOTE]
Easy man,......
1). multiple tests to a singular person, counting and multiple INDIVIDUALS is a thing. Get tested at 2 different pharmacies...or different locations. IT happens, and hit happened a whole lot early on. I even said it doesn't happen as nearly much which is why there were so many issues with the data early on.
2). AND I do believe I shared a chart of vaccinated and hospitalized folks. Guess what. Those VACCINATED folks have "helped" immunity by the shot, but their own natural immunity of getting the **** is what is helping spread the herd immunity we need. I didn't say it is the EXCLUSIVE reason.
3). Data is out there, how about you look for it. I have.
4). How did I disparage you? Seriously, about the only one disparaging anyone on this thread is you...and Move ON.....
Have a good day.
-
I think some of our disagreements come from us not all being on the same sheet of understanding the definitions of data/number presented, JMHO, no offense to anyone.
Some thoughts:
Example is "John" who has been tested 4 times, every 3 months for the passed year(JAN, APR, JUL AND OCT. Lets say John was negative in Jan and July, but postive in March, got well, then tested positive again in October.
I'd say the metrics are:
Total tested: 4
Total postive tests:2 (so yea, it was one person, but his 2 illnesses are 2 seperated CASES)
Total negative tests :2
So lets say it qwas only those 4 total tests in our data pool.
-Postivity rate would stand at 50%. But since John has 10 meighbors not tested, this indicates we ought be testing more to really know how spread the virius is because if those tested 50% of the time are sick, then there probably more untested unidentified sick people out there, and we need to know how many are sick so we can figure out how much medicine, medical people, and hospital beds to plan for. (CDC says: Positive test rate is the number of positive PCR tests over the last 7 days, divided by the total number of PCR tests over the last 7 days.)
And the CDC discloses clearly: Some states [U][B]track positive tests while others track people who test positive[/B][/U]. So someone who takes three tests and eventually tests positive may be counted in noticeably different ways depending on whether the state tracks tests, people, or encounters.
So it appears to this "sober for the minute" dumbarse old Army Tanker, that in some cases while we have different opinions of what the numbers say and how they are collected, and while we beat each other to death arguing, IN FACT WE ARE BOTH RIGHT BUT FOR DIFFERENT REASONS.
-
Geo, you missed my point. let try again.
You say "data is out there how bout you look for it?"
I'm not sure what to look for because I don't have the list of "Geo approved" data. I don't say that to be a smart-ass I'm just trying to make the point that if SOME data is inaccurate then which data IS ACCURATE??
is it only the data that is comfortable for us?
And I am easy....easy enough that we could have this same conversation on the front of a boat, and if you get mad I will just knock your fish off with the net.
-
And I am easy....easy enough that we could have this same conversation on the front of a boat, and if you get mad I will just knock your fish off with the net.[/QUOTE]
haha
-
First........striperNut, sorry. I will try to be better, and try not to be a smartass, etc, etc.
Second.......John Hopkins data is good, CDC, data is good...some state data is good.
Third.....I have other public sources that are also good, but you need to find them. :)
You can reach out to me privately anytime if you'd like to discuss further.
Later,
Geo
-
I wonder how much faster we could put the virus behind us if we just all did every possible thing to fight it first, and saved the discussion and refinement of the metrics for in progress reviews and the after action report.
-
[QUOTE=ZoraSpook;582867]I wonder how much faster we could put the virus behind us if we just all did every possible thing to fight it first, and saved the discussion and refinement of the metrics for in progress reviews and the after action report.[/QUOTE]
Politics has gotten in the way a whole lot. Just like it is about to start up again. Very BLUE states, understanding their voting block is pissed, is all about lifting mandates today.
Imagine that.......
We are 8 months from the mid-term elections and there are a whole lot of seats up...........and a whole lot of those are in places that are not doing very well.
Lo and behold, the mandates are no longer needed.
convenient.
These are the same states that a week ago wanted to throw you in JAIL for not wearing a mask at a freakin school board meeting.
Yep.
Lots of politics ......and more to come.
Later,
Geo
-
[QUOTE=GeoFisher;582869]Politics has gotten in the way a whole lot. Just like it is about to start up again. Very BLUE states, understanding their voting block is pissed, is all about lifting mandates today.
Imagine that.......
We are 8 months from the mid-term elections and there are a whole lot of seats up...........and a whole lot of those are in places that are not doing very well.
Lo and behold, the mandates are no longer needed.
convenient.
These are the same states that a week ago wanted to throw you in JAIL for not wearing a mask at a freakin school board meeting.
Yep.
Lots of politics ......and more to come.
Later,
Geo[/QUOTE]
Amen. Since politicians like to play doctor, it’s time to elect doctors as congressman and governors.
-
[QUOTE=ZoraSpook;582874]Amen. Since politicians like to play doctor, it’s time to elect doctors as congressman and governors.[/QUOTE]
We actually have quite a few doctors as elected officials.
Some are very **** good too........
-
[QUOTE=GeoFisher;582869]We are 8 months from the mid-term elections and there are a whole lot of seats up...........and a whole lot of those are in places that are not doing very well.
Lo and behold, the mandates are no longer needed.
convenient.
[/QUOTE]
The Dems are absolutely doomed except in the most blue of blueish states b/c of mandate resentment.
I'll also say, and I have absolutely nothing to back this up with, that I think it's also possible the CDC and other decision makers looked at Omicron and said "here's a highly transmissible, not as lethal variant" and thought it might be a good idea to remove the mandates, overcome the anti-vaxxers and nudge us toward herd immunity. The next variant could be much worse.
