[Al_U_Card]

At 16:00 you will get to the essence of the dilemma.

https://www.youtube....h?v=UQvaQFdGLn8

[hrothgar]

Al_U_Card, on 2020-December-23, 15:54, said:

At 16:00 you will get to the essence of the dilemma.

https://www.youtube....h?v=UQvaQFdGLn8

In a startling development the resident LaRouchie anti-semite climate change denying 9/11 truther turns out to be an anti-vaxxer...

[hrothgar]

hrothgar, on 2020-December-23, 19:05, said:

In a startling development the resident LaRouchie anti-semite climate change denying 9/11 truther turns out to be an anti-vaxxer...

FWIW, here is what Wikipedia has to say about Dr Wodarg (who is the one Al-U-Card says that we need to pay attention to)

COVID denialism
Anti Vax nonsense
Virulent anti semitism

All wrapped up in a neat little Al-U-Card blessed package

Quote

Wodarg gained notoriety during public discussion of the COVID-19 pandemic when he argued that SARS-CoV-2 was only one of many similar viruses which usually go undetected as part of an ordinary seasonal period of respiratory infections, and that the worldwide activities to stop the pandemic were "hype" caused by the selective perception of researchers.[5]

His comments on the COVID-19 pandemic drew criticism from German scientists and some German media outlets. According to the critics, Wodarg's claims largely contradicted the verifiable facts; some of his statements were neither verifiable nor falsifiable; and because the facts Wodarg presented had nothing to do with each other, his statements had proved to be misleading.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]

Wodarg, together with ex-Pfizer employee and conspiracy theorist Michael Yeadon, has spread misinformation claiming that the COVID-19 vaccines cause infertility. Commenting on these claims, David Gorski wrote "The sad thing is that this not-so-dynamic duo is stoking real fear that the new COVID-19 vaccines will make women infertile and is doing it based on speculative nonsense.".[20]

Transparency International Germany, on whose board of directors Wodarg serves, distanced itself from his statements on 17 March 2020: "Transparency International Germany rejects board member Dr Wolfgang Wodarg's sweeping criticism of the government measures to protect the population from the coronavirus. (...) Wolfgang Wodarg is speaking on this matter as a private individual and not in his capacity as a member of the Management Board."[11][21] On 25 March 2020, the board decided to suspend his membership in the association "until further notice", which means that Wodarg can no longer exercise any functions on the board or as head of the health working group for the time being. The Board of Directors will commission an independent committee to look into Wodarg's statements about the coronavirus and to determine whether his behaviour has harmed the interests of Transparency International Germany. Transparency Chairman Hartmut Bäumer said that the reason for this was that Wodarg had expressed his views on "radical media" such as KenFM, Rubikon, Geolitico, and in an interview with Eva Herman; all of whom, in his opinion, "regularly work with conspiracy theories, with anti-democratic and sometimes anti-Semitic prejudices" and "oppose the basic democratic principles of Transparency"; while "some of them are personally close to the AfD"

[kenberg]

y66, on 2020-December-03, 16:53, said:NYT has a calculator that U.S. residents can use to determine their place in line for a covid vaccine.

barmar, on 2020-December-06, 13:53, said:

I could barely find myself at the end of that long line.

I tried this. It says:
"If the line in Maryland was represented by about 100 people, this is where you'd be standing:"

It then gives a line and I am 25th

They need to rethink this, I am ahead of teachers. I am not trying for an award in being self-sacrificing. It's simple. I live in this country and we have a serious problem.

I understand that my being just shy of 82 means that the virus poses a major risk. But it is also much easier, and with much less consequence, for me than it is for some others to avoid or at least minimize contact.
I can wait a few months for the vaccine. We need to get kids back to school and their parents back to work. And it needs to be done with care.
I am looking forward to taking the vaccine, then I will be able to sit in Starbucks and chat with others who come by. But really, I can wait for a while longer while we deal with more important problems.

This is pretty obvious, is it not?

[Zelandakh]

kenberg, on 2020-December-24, 09:40, said:

This is pretty obvious, is it not?

To be honest Ken, I am not with you on this. The stats are pretty clear that age is by far the biggest factor in covid mortality, significantly above any of the underlying conditions. So it seems absolutely correct to prioritise the elderly in any vaccine rollout. I would definitely place the over 80s in the first wave along with health workers.

[Cyberyeti]

Zelandakh, on 2020-December-24, 10:01, said:

To be honest Ken, I am not with you on this. The stats are pretty clear that age is by far the biggest factor in covid mortality, significantly above any of the underlying conditions. So it seems absolutely correct to prioritise the elderly in any vaccine rollout. I would definitely place the over 80s in the first wave along with health workers.

This is an interesting one. If you're over 80 but live in near isolation, are you at more risk than say a teacher ? Clearly you're at more risk if you catch it, but you're much less likely to get it AND much less likely to pass it on. If you're in a care home situation, you have more contacts, so here it's old care home residents that are at the front of the queue with NHS workers. My dad and stepmum are in their 80s with preexisting conditions so are in the next group down.

[y66]

kenberg, on 2020-December-24, 09:40, said:

y66, on 2020-December-03, 16:53, said:NYT has a calculator that U.S. residents can use to determine their place in line for a covid vaccine.



I tried this. It says:
"If the line in Maryland was represented by about 100 people, this is where you'd be standing:"

It then gives a line and I am 25th

They need to rethink this, I am ahead of teachers. I am not trying for an award in being self-sacrificing. It's simple. I live in this country and we have a serious problem.

I understand that my being just shy of 82 means that the virus poses a major risk. But it is also much easier, and with much less consequence, for me than it is for some others to avoid or at least minimize contact.
I can wait a few months for the vaccine. We need to get kids back to school and their parents back to work. And it needs to be done with care.
I am looking forward to taking the vaccine, then I will be able to sit in Starbucks and chat with others who come by. But really, I can wait for a while longer while we deal with more important problems.

This is pretty obvious, is it not?

Oregon governor Kate Brown hears you. She announced on Tuesday that Oregon’s educators and school staff members will be prioritized in the next round of coronavirus vaccines. She hopes to get kids back in school in February.

One argument for prioritizing on age is that it's the fastest path to getting hospitalizations and deaths down which is the key to minimizing business restrictions. Another argument is that prioritizing on age is reasonable, straightforward and less subject to politics and gaming.


Source: CDC

[kenberg]

y66, on 2020-December-24, 10:24, said:

Oregon governor Kate Brown hears you. She announced on Tuesday that Oregon's educators and school staff members will be prioritized in the next round of coronavirus vaccines. She hopes to get kids back in school in February.

One argument for prioritizing on age is that it's the fastest path to getting hospitalizations and deaths down which is the key to minimizing business restrictions. Another argument is that prioritizing on age is reasonable, straightforward and less subject to politics and gaming.


Source: CDC

The numbers are dramatic. But care is needed. I'll be 82 on Jan 1. But that doesn't, by itself, define me. They need to break down the numbers some, such as 75-84 and living independently and 75-84 and living in a situation that requires frequent close contact with many others. I am in favor of high priority for those in nursing homes.
I'm no expert on this, I'm no expert on a lot of things, but one of my frequent complaints with data is that it is far too quick. Here are some numbers, that's that. It is seldom that simple.

Anyway, my plan is to take the vaccine as soon as it is offered to me, but if they wanted to put teachers ahead of me I would not cry foul.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2020-December-24, 11:38, said:

The numbers are dramatic. But care is needed. I'll be 82 on Jan 1. But that doesn't, by itself, define me. They need to break down the numbers some, such as 75-84 and living independently and 75-84 and living in a situation that requires frequent close contact with many others. I am in favor of high priority for those in nursing homes.
I'm no expert on this, I'm no expert on a lot of things, but one of my frequent complaints with data is that it is far too quick. Here are some numbers, that's that. It is seldom that simple.

Anyway, my plan is to take the vaccine as soon as it is offered to me, but if they wanted to put teachers ahead of me I would not cry foul.

I'm kind of with you, Ken. I think the emphasis on morbidity is misguided. To stop the pandemic is to halt contagion. It seems reasonable to me then to first inoculate those who are at the highest risk of exposure to the virus. I admit it is difficult to overcome the bile of agreeing that those who refuse to wear masks or who think covid is fake should get vaccinated before me, but I'm thinking if that is the best way to halt the spread then let's do it.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2020-December-24, 16:18, said:

I'm kind of with you, Ken. I think the emphasis on morbidity is misguided. To stop the pandemic is to halt contagion. It seems reasonable to me then to first inoculate those who are at the highest risk of exposure to the virus. I admit it is difficult to overcome the bile of agreeing that those who refuse to wear masks or who think covid is fake should get vaccinated before me, but I'm thinking if that is the best way to halt the spread then let's do it.

I was thinking of teachers. And of others. I was not thinking abut the deniers. I have no idea what to do about them. You didn't mention those who don't want to take the vaccine. . That one is easy for me. You say "Ok, next in line step up". We don't yet have enough to go around so we should not waste time trying to convince those who prefer to not take it.

[hrothgar]

I expect to see a simple solution for folks who don't want to take the vaccine:

No vaccine, no insurance coverage for expenses related to COVID (and that goes for Medicaid / Medicare as well)

[johnu]

hrothgar, on 2020-December-24, 23:17, said:

I expect to see a simple solution for folks who don't want to take the vaccine:

No vaccine, no insurance coverage for expenses related to COVID (and that goes for Medicaid / Medicare as well)

They can be covered by Red State Insurance Company, cheapest insurance you can get. Premiums are $0.00, but the only benefits that are paid out are emails and texts begging for donations sent by the Manchurian President.

[kenberg]

hrothgar, on 2020-December-24, 23:17, said:

I expect to see a simple solution for folks who don't want to take the vaccine:

No vaccine, no insurance coverage for expenses related to COVID (and that goes for Medicaid / Medicare as well)

I understand and somewhat share the thinking behind this, but no, I don't recommend it. A more modest version would be to require that someone who refuses the vaccine and then needs treatment be first required to publicly announce that he now realizes he was an idiot.

For the time being, someone who refuses the vaccine simply makes the shot available to someone else and so we can just go along with that. As supplies become more available this could change.

And yes, I didn't take your suggestion literally, I figure it's an expression of frustration and, as noted, I share it.

There is perhaps a problem along these lines that warrants some thought. I have seen more than one article from a Black author about the distrust the Black community has for a vaccine when many/most of the advocates for it are White. There are historical reasons for this distrust as you, and everyone, know. What to do? I think the same idea of saying "Ok, I understand" and then going on to the next person is the right idea but with an additional feature or two. You provide information, and you explain the shot will still be available if the refuser should later change his mind. This seems like the best way to build some trust. Don't try a hard sell. Accept the person's concerns and accept his decision. But allow for a change of mind later. Actually we can forget race and use this same approach for all refusers.

As I have aged I have seen far more doctors than before. Probably 80% or more of all my medical interactions have been in the last ten years. It has become clear that absolute faith in doctors is very naive. I have always known this but these last ten years have made it very clear. So I understand caution. But here the decision is easy. Well, easy for me. I take the vaccine when it is offered. But we can accept that others will be more cautious.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2020-December-25, 08:22, said:

I understand and somewhat share the thinking behind this, but no, I don't recommend it. A more modest version would be to require that someone who refuses the vaccine and then needs treatment be first required to publicly announce that he now realizes he was an idiot.

For the time being, someone who refuses the vaccine simply makes the shot available to someone else and so we can just go along with that. As supplies become more available this could change.

And yes, I didn't take your suggestion literally, I figure it's an expression of frustration and, as noted, I share it.

There is perhaps a problem along these lines that warrants some thought. I have seen more than one article from a Black author about the distrust the Black community has for a vaccine when many/most of the advocates for it are White. There are historical reasons for this distrust as you, and everyone, know. What to do? I think the same idea of saying "Ok, I understand" and then going on to the next person is the right idea but with an additional feature or two. You provide information, and you explain the shot will still be available if the refuser should later change his mind. This seems like the best way to build some trust. Don't try a hard sell. Accept the person's concerns and accept his decision. But allow for a change of mind later. Actually we can forget race and use this same approach for all refusers.

As I have aged I have seen far more doctors than before. Probably 80% or more of all my medical interactions have been in the last ten years. It has become clear that absolute faith in doctors is very naive. I have always known this but these last ten years have made it very clear. So I understand caution. But here the decision is easy. Well, easy for me. I take the vaccine when it is offered. But we can accept that others will be more cautious.

Something I tend to forget amidst the chaos is that news organizations like to report about combatants - remember Wolf Blitzer in Bagdad? The noise is being made by a minority of the population - but when the noise is reported incessantly it seems like more. I have to kick myself to remember there are more normal or at least semi-normal people in the U.S. than there are noisy nutcases.

Perhaps we should turn off those networks who continue to showcase crazy only.

[hrothgar]

kenberg, on 2020-December-25, 08:22, said:

I understand and somewhat share the thinking behind this, but no, I don't recommend it. A more modest version would be to require that someone who refuses the vaccine and then needs treatment be first required to publicly announce that he now realizes he was an idiot.

On of the problems that we face as a society is that we have a bunch of idiots out there who are shielded from the consequences of their actions.

The one that I am actually most upset about is when you have armed groups of citizens storming capital building in Oregon and Michigan. With all seriousness, I think that the country would be a lot better off if the local police fired some warning shots and, if the crowd didn't disperse started shooting to kill.

And, I am perfectly comfortable seeing a bunch of anti vaxxer's have their lives ruined.

Please note: I lost a couple close friends to COVID this week.

I expect that another is going to die in the next few days (he had a liver transplant a few years back, is on immuno suppressents and and the virus is devastating him)

He was forced to travel from Mexico to the US in late November to get his drugs re-filled and appears to have caught the bug while in an airport. He's gone to die because some idiots wanted to see their family.

[kenberg]

Friends and family have had it, pretty much anyone can say that, but so far no one close to me has died from it. I am sorry to hear about your loss. And sorry indeed that this applies to so many.

[Winstonm]

Zelandakh, on 2020-December-24, 10:01, said:

To be honest Ken, I am not with you on this. The stats are pretty clear that age is by far the biggest factor in covid mortality, significantly above any of the underlying conditions. So it seems absolutely correct to prioritise the elderly in any vaccine rollout. I would definitely place the over 80s in the first wave along with health workers.

Maybe the first wave. After that, it has been shown that most who have Covid infect only 1 or 2 others. But there is a smaller group of super-spreaders who infect 20-30 or more. The best way to safety for all is to eliminate the super-spreaders, and the best way to do that is to vaccinate those who have the most contact with others in indoor settings, whoever they might be.

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on 2020-December-25, 12:16, said:

On of the problems that we face as a society is that we have a bunch of idiots out there who are shielded from the consequences of their actions.

The one that I am actually most upset about is when you have armed groups of citizens storming capital building in Oregon and Michigan. With all seriousness, I think that the country would be a lot better off if the local police fired some warning shots and, if the crowd didn't disperse started shooting to kill.

And, I am perfectly comfortable seeing a bunch of anti vaxxer's have their lives ruined.

Please note: I lost a couple close friends to COVID this week.

I expect that another is going to die in the next few days (he had a liver transplant a few years back, is on immuno suppressents and and the virus is devastating him)

He was forced to travel from Mexico to the US in late November to get his drugs re-filled and appears to have caught the bug while in an airport. He's gone to die because some idiots wanted to see their family.

I am sorry you have to deal with so much death.

The problem I think is what you nailed it with your first sentence - which to my thinking spells immaturity. We used to called these kids spoiled - now these kids are in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. No longer kids but still with the mindset that they should not be responsible for others.

This is a cultural problem that will take decades to alter.

[barmar]

hrothgar, on 2020-December-24, 23:17, said:

I expect to see a simple solution for folks who don't want to take the vaccine:

No vaccine, no insurance coverage for expenses related to COVID (and that goes for Medicaid / Medicare as well)

If we had such a policy, it should probably apply to all diseases that we regularly vaccinate for. If a parent objects to MMR vaccine for their child on religious grounds, and their child gets one of these diseass, they should have to pray to God for them to get better, they can't go to the doctor/hospital (hmm, isn't this actually what Christian Scientists do?).

I heard that since the vaccine distribution started, demand is actually higher than was anticipated from earlier polls, so we may not have as much of a problem getting most people vaccinated. It's easy to say no about a hypothetical vaccine to a pollster, when you don't know much about the efficacy and safety. Now that it's real, and you see people like Pence and Faucci (depending on who you trust) getting it, there's less apprehension.

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2020-December-26, 12:13, said:

If we had such a policy, it should probably apply to all diseases that we regularly vaccinate for. If a parent objects to MMR vaccine for their child on religious grounds, and their child gets one of these diseass, they should have to pray to God for them to get better, they can't go to the doctor/hospital (hmm, isn't this actually what Christian Scientists do?).

I heard that since the vaccine distribution started, demand is actually higher than was anticipated from earlier polls, so we may not have as much of a problem getting most people vaccinated. It's easy to say no about a hypothetical vaccine to a pollster, when you don't know much about the efficacy and safety. Now that it's real, and you see people like Pence and Faucci (depending on who you trust) getting it, there's less apprehension.

Your second paragraph matches well with the way I see many polls. Often the true answer to what will I do is that I will watch and see. in fact it makes sense. Of course we want to be safe from the virus. So we wait until there is a vaccine and then we see who says what about it. in this pricular case yes, I have made up my mind barring some unexpected development. I take the vaccine when it is offered to me. But there are many many things where the only honest answer to a question about wht I will do is that I will think about it but have not yet done so.