1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

If you read the whole paragraph from WGB's link it explains it:
 

The number from statista is an adjusted number that the CDCs model uses which accounts for under-reporting of flu deaths. 

The CDC should be much more clear about these things. That said, the CDC has never faced the level of scrutiny it has during a highly politicized pandemic so ... 🤷‍♂️

Fair enough.  

2 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

If you read the whole paragraph from WGB's link it explains it:
 

199 is the exact number reported. The number from statista is an adjusted number that the CDCs model uses which accounts for under-reporting of flu deaths. 

The CDC should be much more clear about these things. That said, the CDC has never faced the level of scrutiny it has during a highly politicized pandemic so ... 🤷‍♂️

Numbers should not be politicized. Just give us the data and let us decide. 

I'd never say this out loud, but there's something about Rochelle Walensky that I find quite attractive.  I'd let her perform statistical analysis on me anytime.

10 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

I'd never say this out loud, but there's something about Rochelle Walensky that I find quite attractive.  I'd let her perform statistical analysis on me anytime.

I'm not much a fan, neither of her appearance, nor her performance. The list of her missteps is long but probably one of the biggest ones is the recent claim that viral load for those infected with delta is the same level as those unvaccinated against it. Which is misleading because it doesn't specify whether the viral load is as infectious, meaning whether the same amount of live virus can be cultured from both. Presumably, neutralizing antibodies would've binded to some portion of the sample since that's literally their purpose and primary function, but she just throws it out there knowing the distinction would be completely lost.

For reference, there was a study early on in the pandemic from a lab experiment that showed the virus was found on various surfaces up to a week later. This caused people to panic and wipe everything down for months, including groceries. But the study was called out almost immediately for non-representative aspiration methods and failing to ascertain whether they were able to culture the virus from their samples. Follow up studies proved how difficult it was to become infected from contaminated surfaces, and we eventually began to collectively understand that wiping down everything in sight was overkill.

12 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

I'd never say this out loud, but there's something about Rochelle Walensky that I find quite attractive.  I'd let her perform statistical analysis on me anytime.

I mean, she's not unattractive.

Intelligent, well-spoken women are hot.

13 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

I'm not much a fan, neither of her appearance, nor her performance. The list of her missteps is long but probably one of the biggest ones is the recent claim that viral load for those infected with delta is the same level as those unvaccinated against it. Which is misleading because it doesn't specify whether the viral load is as infectious, meaning whether the same amount of live virus can be cultured from both. Presumably, neutralizing antibodies would've binded to some portion of the sample since that's literally their purpose and primary function, but she just throws it out there knowing the distinction would be completely lost.

Buzz kill.

18 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Follow up studies proved how difficult it was to become infected from contaminated surfaces, and we eventually began to collectively understand that wiping down everything in sight was overkill.

 

Yeah, but in my opinion, if we come out of this being a cleaner society in general, that's a good thing. Not to mention, if we're trying to keep the load off hospitals, we should continue to do everything we can to eliminate the presence of bacteria and viruses that can generally cause illness. Personally, I'm relieved to know that my school and learning center and their various workstations/accoutrements are being cleaned/wiped down daily/hourly by both the teachers and custodians alike. People (and especially kids) are gross; we should've been doing this all along. I'm not rushing to tell any colleagues or administrators that constantly cleaning the desks is probably unnecessary.

15 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

I'm not much a fan, neither of her appearance, nor her performance. The list of her missteps is long but probably one of the biggest ones is the recent claim that viral load for those infected with delta is the same level as those unvaccinated against it. Which is misleading because it doesn't specify whether the viral load is as infectious, meaning whether the same amount of live virus can be cultured from both. Presumably, neutralizing antibodies would've binded to some portion of the sample since that's literally their purpose and primary function, but she just throws it out there knowing the distinction would be completely lost.

For reference, there was a study early on in the pandemic from a lab experiment that showed the virus was found on various surfaces up to a week later. This caused people to panic and wipe everything down for months, including groceries. But the study was called out almost immediately for non-representative aspiration methods and failing to ascertain whether they were able to culture the virus from their samples. Follow up studies proved how difficult it was to become infected from contaminated surfaces, and we eventually began to collectively understand that wiping down everything in sight was overkill.

Wait you mean I don’t have to keep dunking my donuts in Clorox?  

Are you fully vaccinated and don't wear a mask?

Are you fully vaccinated and still wear a mask?

Are you not vaccinated and don't wear a mask?

Are you not vaccinated and wear a mask?

1 minute ago, Mike030270 said:

Are you fully vaccinated and don't wear a mask?

Are you fully vaccinated and still wear a mask?

Are you not vaccinated and don't wear a mask?

Are you not vaccinated and wear a mask?

Fully vaccinated and don't wear a mask (as of now).

22 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

I mean, she's not unattractive.

And sometimes that's enough.  Who am I kidding?  At my age, that's usually enough. 

13 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

Are you fully vaccinated and don't wear a mask?

Are you fully vaccinated and still wear a mask?

Are you not vaccinated and don't wear a mask?

Are you not vaccinated and wear a mask?

Option 1, unless I’m in a place that requires it still. I flew down to Florida to see my mom last week and had to wear it in the airport and on the plane. I also had to wear it the day I went to an urgent care. 

CVON:  Check out this attractive woman 

 

WGB: 

Vaccinated, no mask unless required by the property manager of the building I might be visiting - then I am compliant, but skeptical of the value...

CNN really pushing the fear, must have learned height of pandemic was good for ratings

20 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

Are you fully vaccinated and don't wear a mask?

Are you fully vaccinated and still wear a mask?

Are you not vaccinated and don't wear a mask?

Are you not vaccinated and wear a mask?

Finding one of these people is probably less likely than KZ at a biden rally

So I just read an article that after 6 months the efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine drops by 6% every two month. That was very interesting..

Pfizer's CEO says Covid vaccine effectiveness drops to 84% after six months (cnbc.com)

J&J' said their studies show the vaccine getting stronger after 8 months.  

Positive New Data for Johnson & Johnson Single-Shot COVID-19 Vaccine on Activity Against Delta Variant and Long-lasting Durability of Response | Johnson & Johnson (jnj.com)

Is this because they use different vaccine technologies or is it just because of the way the studies were done? Really confused because J&J is clearly the inferior vaccine so I'm not sure why us J&Jers aren't being told to get another dose.

1 hour ago, we_gotta_believe said:

I've already said that most of what I've seen paints the risk as comparable. I'm not gonna defend what she said, but the take home message for parents remains the same: Don't F around with this thing. It's not a joke. 

Don't believe me? There's a children's hospital in Arkansas that would like to disabuse parents of the notion that kids don't get really sick from COVID. Yesterday they reported 24 kids were admitted, when their previous all time high was 16 during the winter peak. Of those 24 patients, 7 are in the ICU with 2 on vents. The saddest part though? Over half are over 12 and could've been vaccinated but weren't.

Don't use last year's data for this year's variant. Delta is tearing through these communities and anyone that's unvaccinated (including kids) is at risk.

https://www.nwahomepage.com/lifestyle/health/coronavirus/arkansas-childrens-sees-record-number-of-covid-19-hospitalizations/

 

5 minutes ago, mikemack8 said:

CVON:  Check out this attractive woman 

 

WGB: 

Perfect. I'm guessing both the size and hairstyle are spot on.  

1 hour ago, DaEagles4Life said:

Numbers should not be politicized. Just give us the data and let us decide. 

The CDC isn't politicizing them, they just have multiple numbers - some just straight reporting numbers, others adjusted numbers based on modeling. This is pretty common, because data collection is by far the biggest impediment to getting a good picture of what's going on so models have to be employed to get a proper pictures. For example they may know that a particular state or hospital lags behind in some reporting, so for timely information the model might project what they expect based on past reports until proper numbers can fill in. Or they know based on in depth analysis that certain types of deaths are underreported, and so for raw numbers they employ a projection that tries to account for that.

The most they can do is be very clear that one number is exactly what is reported, and another number is based on modeling and has been adjusted and for what reasons it was adjusted.

Unfortunately people who have a narrative they want to support pick and choose whatever numbers fit best and omit context or even other data that runs counter to that narrative. 

53 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

I'm not much a fan, neither of her appearance, nor her performance. The list of her missteps is long but probably one of the biggest ones is the recent claim that viral load for those infected with delta is the same level as those unvaccinated against it. Which is misleading because it doesn't specify whether the viral load is as infectious, meaning whether the same amount of live virus can be cultured from both. Presumably, neutralizing antibodies would've binded to some portion of the sample since that's literally their purpose and primary function, but she just throws it out there knowing the distinction would be completely lost.

The CDC has been TERRIBLE and clumsy at messaging. Though even if they were really good at messaging people who don't like what they're saying and recommending would find some way to twist and spin things, so who knows.

4 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

So I just read an article that after 6 months the efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine drops by 6% every two month. That was very interesting..

Pfizer's CEO says Covid vaccine effectiveness drops to 84% after six months (cnbc.com)

J&J' said their studies show the vaccine getting stronger after 8 months.  

Positive New Data for Johnson & Johnson Single-Shot COVID-19 Vaccine on Activity Against Delta Variant and Long-lasting Durability of Response | Johnson & Johnson (jnj.com)

Is this because they use different vaccine technologies or is it just because of the way the studies were done? Really confused because J&J is clearly the inferior vaccine so I'm not sure why us J&Jers aren't being told to get another dose.

I still tell people not to get the Johnson & Johnson one