The P&R Plague Thread (Covid-19)

[Archy1221]

34 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

 

Nothing like a heavily right-biased source to tell us that right-wingers really nailed Covid while those wacky libs failed utterly.  

Would you like to crack the data included in the study and prove it wrong or just complain about the source because your afraid of what you might find out and this is just the easier safer option??

[Dr. Strangelove]

7 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Would you like to crack the data included in the study and prove it wrong or just complain about the source because your afraid of what you might find out and this is just the easier safer option??

I think the death rates of Red states and communities vs Blue states is pretty stark, particularly since the availability of vaccines. I get that you don't want to reconcile your political support with the fact that it's harming people, but cmon.

 

Secondly, when the pandemic first began policy was operating in an environment with a lot of unknowns. City and state officials were doing their best to protect people when possible. 

 

Third, you should base your vote on how politicians respond with known information vs unknown information. Your party - after research on vaccines proved they were extremely successful in preventing deaths - decided to double down on sowing distrust to benefit them politically. 

 

Even by my low standards for Republican voters, I believe if you try super-duper hard you can start nominating candidates who don't want to actively kill their constituents so they can pass tax cuts for Koch Industries. Well, I really don't think you have it in you guys but try, pretty please?

[Archy1221]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

22 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

 

I think the death rates of Red states and communities vs Blue states is pretty stark, particularly since the availability of vaccines. I get that you don't want to reconcile your political support with the fact that it's harming people, but cmon.

You actually don’t get anything because your post has nothing to do with me posting if knapp looked at the data in the study before just dismissing it.   Your words are just bluster and trying to conflate an argument somewhere else.  As Joe would say C’mon man.  

[Archy1221]

11 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

 

Secondly, when the pandemic first began policy was operating in an environment with a lot of unknowns. City and state officials were doing their best to protect people when possible. 

Second…When the pandemic first began, I had no problem with temporary shutdowns in places that were getting hammered when not a lot was known.   
 

However, it didn’t make a lot of sense to lockdown the Midwest in  April, and May when disease was not overwhelming the healthcare system and it became more known what we were all dealing with.  Precautions….sure, continued lockdowns….no

[Archy1221]

14 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

 

Third, you should base your vote on how politicians respond with known information vs unknown information. Your party - after research on vaccines proved they were extremely successful in preventing deaths - decided to double down on sowing distrust to benefit them politically. 

Third…I’ll pass on taking voting advice from you.  Especially based on your complete distortion of the vaccine statement you just made.  Especially considering “my party” was in power of the executive branch and responsible for creating an atmosphere that the vaccine could be created AND approved in such record time allowing the country to save hundreds of thousands of lives.   

[knapplc]

38 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Would you like to crack the data included in the study and prove it wrong or just complain about the source because your afraid of what you might find out and this is just the easier safer option??

 

Can you link to the study?

[Archy1221]

18 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

 

Even by my low standards for Republican voters, I believe if you try super-duper hard you can start nominating candidates who don't want to actively kill their constituents so they can pass tax cuts for Koch Industries. Well, I really don't think you have it in you guys but try, pretty please?

Can you provide an example of candidates like this that are currently or have happened please.    It’s an explosive charge to make so I assume you ample evidence and exact people to show for it.  

[FrantzHardySwag]

1 hour ago, nic said:

Why so draconian for omicron?

Because it's China. It's a country that had a 1 child policy in the last decade. 

[Archy1221]

6 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Can you link to the study?

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w29928/w29928.pdf

 

This should be it if I linked correctly. 

[Jason Sitoke]

1 hour ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Everyone is going to end up being right. COVID is considerably deadlier than the flu, but we're gonna have to live with it. Mandates and shutdowns, no, common sense and decency, yes. 

Certainly seems to depend on which flavor of COVID you're talking about currently.

[knapplc]

5 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w29928/w29928.pdf

 

This should be it if I linked correctly. 

 

California & New York were hit hard and fast first by the virus before mitigating measures and CDC analysis were in place. And yet...

 

 

 

 

Placing a lower value on life than economic impact is par for the course for a group funded by the Koch Bros. and DeSantis bankrollers, but hey, that's our Republican Utopia in action.

 

Oops. Wrong thread.   ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Scarlet]

 

 

https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-pandemics-politics-masks-vaccines-deaths-2644f22b-fa77-4e34-a6fe-8b492172dff2.html

 

Quote

The partisan gap, measured by deaths above what would normally be expected, was particularly stark during last year's Delta wave, when all adults had access to vaccines but stark differences emerged between Democrats and Republicans' vaccination rates.

 

The gap shrank during the Omicron wave, as the variant could evade some of the vaccines' protection.

In the pre-vaccine phase of the pandemic, blue states — particularly big cities — were hit hardest beginning in March 2020. But once those initial outbreaks subsided, the virus took off in red states and less populated areas.

The big picture: The virus has proved itself to be exhaustingly unpredictable in many ways over the last two years. But there's no doubt that tools like high-quality masks and vaccines reduce the risk of catching the virus, and in the case of vaccines, of dying from it.

 

That means it's not surprising that once those tools were widely available, states with political and cultural aversions to using them were hit harder.

 

 

[Archy1221]

21 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

California & New York were hit hard and fast first by the virus before mitigating measures and CDC analysis were in place. And yet...

 

 

 

 

Placing a lower value on life than economic impact is par for the course for a group funded by the Koch Bros. and DeSantis bankrollers, but hey, that's our Republican Utopia in action.

 

Oops. Wrong thread.   ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Is this your way of saying you didn’t look at the data, since your using the wrong data

[knapplc]

28 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Is this your way of saying you didn’t look at the data, since your using the wrong data

 

I looked at the data. They're using the wrong data. 

[Archy1221]

4 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

I looked at the data. They're using the wrong data. 

How so?  It’s age adjusted data.   Very appropriate to do considering the number #1 risk factor of Covid is age