This is a great example of how the lazy and wrong make arguments. It's as bad as non-responses.
And you found six articles. Where's the surveys showing this is representative of ten millions of *people* (your term) as a whole and not just 6 people out of 300 million?
Posting an *opinion piece* as your first source when trying to backup your point is especially glaring on this. They're literally telling you it represents one person's opinion.
You’re responses are a perfect example of how the intolerant and political loyalist react. Instead of entering in polite debate, you attack with insults and say, “where’s the proof”?! And when posted, you look at 1 out of 6 and try to justify why it’s wrong. So Biden is willing to give credit to Trump but you won’t? I’m not sure what it is you take issue with here because instead of debating the topic, you keep it about me.
The fact of the matter is I said, “people not willing” and that could be dozens of people I’ve seen on social media, hundreds I’ve seen on TV, hundreds I’ve read about or whatever. I didn’t say ALL people and it’s very weird you’ve locked this response to eat into.
So seriously, what’s your issue?
When you’re called out that you’re using non-evidence to try and make a point you dig in with personal attacks.
And this idea that it’s an attack to need proof is a sign you don’t care about being right, you just want what you’ve seen to be right no matter how much it isn’t.
If we assume it’s 1000 people you’re seen you’re at 1 in 330,000 people and you’re still not understanding that you’re using selection bias to assume what you see represents the average person.
Remember, social media is largely tuned to show you content based on what you’ve interacted in the past. It’s very likely you’re proving your personal biases with that statement.
Forgive me if I’m suspicious of your newly established position of demanding evidence for anything said on this forum. I’ve never seen you ask anyone else for evidence to back up what they’ve seen, read or experienced in their own lives.
If what I said isn’t true, why do respected journalist and media outlets take the time to write about who deserves credit or how much credit is due to certain administrations?
You’re still avoiding the actual topic. I don’t need to prove I’m right when I’m talking about something that’s literally common sense. I’m not saying anything that’s not out there in thousands of publications. I’ve had dozens of conservatives in person and most of my friends are very liberal, music, artist, higher education types. When I go back to the farm, I hear a major refusal to give Obama any credit for anything and when I’m with my liberal friends, they refuse to give Trump credit for anything. Should I start logging my conversations to appease your new standard of engagement?
It's great to see someone use the word "demanding" who has a history of victim blaming and personal attacks.
Apparently there's thousands of publications making your point and you've been unable to validate this is representative of the sum total of the country rather than your personal biases of the media you view. I find it hard to believe you've read thousands of unique publications.
I'll just leave this as someone who makes points they parrot from social media and shows the standards that prove selection bias as a problem and move on. Nothing you've provided is constructive towards making your points.
flyingember wrote: ↑Tue Mar 09, 2021 11:01 am
It's great to see someone use the word "demanding" who has a history of victim blaming and personal attacks.
Apparently there's thousands of publications making your point and you've been unable to validate this is representative of the sum total of the country rather than your personal biases of the media you view. I find it hard to believe you've read thousands of unique publications.
I'll just leave this as someone who makes points they parrot from social media and shows the standards that prove selection bias as a problem and move on. Nothing you've provided is constructive towards making your points.
Again with the personal attacks. I said you had something in your panties, I’ve not tossed any personal attacks about your character. You can’t honestly be taking everything I say this literal? Do a simple google search and you’ll find pages and pages of articles on the topic. I think it’s safe to say based on that alone that there are thousands of articles discussing the topic.
Here’s a personal attack—— you have to be utterly stupid to think my comment saying “people” was supposed to mean the sum total of the population. This is the most ridiculous argument I’ve seen you make, which is saying a lot. It’s factual people argue over where credit for the economy and vaccine development should go. I’m sorry you have no social media friends or a diverse friend group to pull from.
And enough with the victim blaming crap, problems don’t get fixed without talking honestly about them and pretending is for children. It’s like the 3 same members on here have a rager for me and fight to see who can annoy me the most. You’re in first place this week. I’m sure you’ll be lapped soon.
It’s funny too. I actually try to engage in debate and there’s clearly some trolls on here who get more respect than me! I know why, do you?
Looks like NYT Covid-tracker is glitching. Claims 50,000 new cases in a day with 6,000 in Jackson County alone. Mayo clinic has in line with where we were before so I assume its a mistake on NYT's part.
In other news, KCMo expects to receive about $150 million from the direct aid to cities portion of the stimulus bill. KCK will receive $50 million and OP and Inde will get $20 million.
normalthings wrote: ↑Tue Mar 09, 2021 2:36 pm
Looks like NYT Covid-tracker is glitching. Claims 50,000 new cases in a day with 6,000 in Jackson County alone. Mayo clinic has in line with where we were before so I assume its a mistake on NYT's part.
Should read the top level of that page and there's a note on the very first chart
"Missouri added antigen cases"
A quick search finds the state reclassified a lot of old data and they (the NYT) didn't go back and update every single day.
normalthings wrote: ↑Tue Mar 09, 2021 2:36 pm
Looks like NYT Covid-tracker is glitching. Claims 50,000 new cases in a day with 6,000 in Jackson County alone. Mayo clinic has in line with where we were before so I assume its a mistake on NYT's part.
Should read the top level of that page and there's a note on the very first chart
"Missouri added antigen cases"
A quick search finds the state reclassified a lot of old data and they (the NYT) didn't go back and update every single day.
It's completely legit
I see that disclaimer now. I don’t think it was there earlier. So 50,000 new total cases but spread out across the entirety of the pandemic.
normalthings wrote: ↑Tue Mar 09, 2021 2:36 pm
Looks like NYT Covid-tracker is glitching. Claims 50,000 new cases in a day with 6,000 in Jackson County alone. Mayo clinic has in line with where we were before so I assume its a mistake on NYT's part.
In other news, KCMo expects to receive about $150 million from the direct aid to cities portion of the stimulus bill. KCK will receive $50 million and OP and Inde will get $20 million.
Numbers from KC Star. I am really interested to see where the funds go.
KCMO: $195 million
KCK: $57 million
OP & Inde: $20 million
Not from KC Star
STL City (with a population of 300K) will get close to $500 million.
ABC News reported today that President Biden promised 100 million vaccinations in the first 100 days of his administration. It will be achieved tomorrow on Day 58.
Nature - Five reasons why COVID herd immunity is probably impossible
He said that reaching a herd-immunity threshold was looking unlikely because of factors such as vaccine hesitancy, the emergence of new variants and the delayed arrival of vaccinations for children.
Nearly 25% of US population is under 18 and over 30% of US adults may not take vax. Some (over 10%) are not returning for second shot. And all it takes is a small scare to create more hesitancy, like what happened with AstraZeneca vax. Global participation likely to be lower. Am also hearing from family (left-leaning younger nieces/nephews) not particularly hesitant implying that virus rates are going down so they may not take vax unless it starts to go back up. Are others thinking that?
Beats me, I'm getting it. If young people refuse it because numbers are trending in the right direction, they're probably just going to cause it to trend in the wrong direction. Great idea! Who doesn't love unnecessary death and suffering? All hail young people, for they are our future of not having a future!
Cool story, bro. Who is this anonymous pathologist, and for which esteemed institution does this person work? Can I see his published papers about vaccine resistant viruses actually being a serious concern? If not, I'm sticking with the established science that says it's more or less a non-issue.
It seems way too early to know what the ultimate vax rate is going to be or to confidently predict that reaching 60% is "highly unlikely" while demand for the vax still outstrips supply. The vax will eventually be approved for children, whose schools will probably require them to get it, and the number of "hesitant" adults will also fall (by how much, who can say) for a combination of reasons (some who are not anti-vax in general but are worried that this particular vax was "rushed" or could otherwise be unsafe will change their minds as others get vaxxed, others will opt-in in response to social pressure [e.g., if vaccine passports become a thing], incentives and/or pressure from their employers, etc). I don't see any particular reason to expect that the ultimate vax rate for this will be especially different from other vaccines. And then as far as herd immunity goes, you can add to the vaxxed the number of un-vaxxed who acquire natural immunity through infection.
It seems pretty irresponsible for a pathologist to discourage people from getting vaccinated based on an assumption that herd immunity will not be achieved and speculation about "stronger variants" that could, theoretically, emerge if that assumption came true. Variants emerge more or less rapidly depending how many opportunities the virus has to reproduce and mutate, so an increasing number of vaccinations means a decreasing number of cases and a decreasing number of opportunities for existing strains to mutate into new variants, herd immunity or not. And what does "stronger variant" even mean, anyway? Most pathogens evolve to become less lethal over time, not more, so does "stronger" here just mean more infectious? I gotta say, I'm not super worried about a strain of covid that is easier to catch but fairly innocuous if you have it. And if you're concerned about not reaching herd immunity then you probably shouldn't be giving the well-meaning people who otherwise would have gotten vaxxed made-up reasons not to do it.
I would expect vaccination will be required for most jobs, youth programs and there will be regular boosters for new strains. At the point you have to show a card to work it will become way more fringe.
It will end up with the no being minority of people in the anti-vax movement. I'm not sure that group will shrink but it will become a lot more fringe because people will connect vaccination with not dieing for a while rather than the false autism connection.
phuqueue wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 3:05 pm
It seems pretty irresponsible for a pathologist to discourage people from getting vaccinated...
I didn't at all imply he 'discouragted people' from getting vax, was careful not to suggest that. Have mentioned he actually encourages vax (of most any kind) for those at high risk but more cautious about recommendations to the masses and he himself is not taking the COVID vax. That's not at all the same as discouraging. The rest of what I pointed out was the challenges of weighing a vax to the masses vs just to those at risk, especially when treatments are improving. It's a valid point but I do intend to get vax anyway.
phuqueue wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 3:05 pm
It seems pretty irresponsible for a pathologist to discourage people from getting vaccinated...
I didn't at all imply he 'discouragted people' from getting vax, was careful not to suggest that. Have mentioned he actually encourages vax (of most any kind) for those at high risk but more cautious about recommendations to the masses and he himself is not taking the COVID vax. That's not at all the same as discouraging. The rest of what I pointed out was the challenges of weighing a vax to the masses vs just to those at risk, especially when treatments are improving. It's a valid point but I do intend to get vax anyway.
If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem!
