They need to vaccinate normal people first

The Big Club wrote:

What are those mortality rates, btw?

For the elderly and high risk?

pretty f'ing high.

hank jr wrote:

The Big Club wrote:

What are those mortality rates, btw?

For the elderly and high risk?

pretty f'ing high.

Can you please provide a number to show how "high"? Just asking.

The Big Club wrote:

hank jr wrote:

For the elderly and high risk?

pretty f'ing high.

Can you please provide a number to show how "high"? Just asking.

No, you have access to google, do your own homework.

Lol. You make claims and don't want to show your work.

I'm just not willing to argue with a smooth numbskull on lets run at this point in my day.

The Big Club wrote:

Lol. You make claims and don't want to show your work.

You're welcome

thank you.

What we're finding is that only 1 in 8 doses of vaccine meant for elderly care facilities has been used. The people running these facilities are either unable or unwilling to administer the vaccine. Instead of 20,000,000 vaccinations by the end of 2020, we're at 4,000,000 or so. The strategy of prioritizing the elderly is not working and isn't stopping the spread.

If we want to "stop the spread" we need to vaccinate the spreaders -- those who are working and coming into contact with dozens or hundreds of people per day.

Not a doctor wrote:

What we're finding is that only 1 in 8 doses of vaccine meant for elderly care facilities has been used. The people running these facilities are either unable or unwilling to administer the vaccine. Instead of 20,000,000 vaccinations by the end of 2020, we're at 4,000,000 or so. The strategy of prioritizing the elderly is not working and isn't stopping the spread.

If we want to "stop the spread" we need to vaccinate the spreaders -- those who are working and coming into contact with dozens or hundreds of people per day.

I think this next week will make the feasibility of the tiering system in the USA clear. Now that the holidays are done, we are either going to start vaccinating by the millions or not. If we can't get shots in arms, it's probably time to offer shots to way, way, way more people. We need to get as many people immunized ASAP

hank jr wrote:

thank you.

And just like that Big Club the denier goes away. Allergic to facts

800 dude wrote:

most in U.S. public health agree ... wrote:

Most in U.S. public health agree with you.

Texas and some other southern states prefer to vaccinate old people first for racist reasons. Relatively speaking, there are not many Blacks & Latins over age 65. There are millions of Whites over age 65. Many Blacks & Latins are younger front line workers.

This is not correct. There's a consensus that vaccinating older people ahead of essential workers will save many lives. The CDC acknowledged this. It suggested prioritizing essential workers anyway because that would lead to more minorities getting vaccinated. The CDC was quite open about the fact that this recommendation was not to minimize harm from the virus but rather to promote racial justice. The states that have prioritized the elderly ahead of essential workers are doing what public health officials believe is likely to cause the fewest deaths.

B .S. Vaccinating those over 65 first means vaccinating wealthy White people who live in 5500 square foot homes on 5 1/2 acres instead of many Black & Latin cashiers at U.S.P.S. or Kroger Foods. Texas way will save more White people over age 65 not save more people.

Science and its most recent spokesperson on Covid(Fauci) has dropped the ball big time on this. It's a coin toss at this point.

most in U.S. public health agree ... wrote:

800 dude wrote:

This is not correct. There's a consensus that vaccinating older people ahead of essential workers will save many lives. The CDC acknowledged this. It suggested prioritizing essential workers anyway because that would lead to more minorities getting vaccinated. The CDC was quite open about the fact that this recommendation was not to minimize harm from the virus but rather to promote racial justice. The states that have prioritized the elderly ahead of essential workers are doing what public health officials believe is likely to cause the fewest deaths.

B .S. Vaccinating those over 65 first means vaccinating wealthy White people who live in 5500 square foot homes on 5 1/2 acres instead of many Black & Latin cashiers at U.S.P.S. or Kroger Foods. Texas way will save more White people over age 65 not save more people.

CNN reporter spotted

hank jr wrote:

harvard educated doctor wrote:

Oh yea, I agree with you 100% to vaccinate the high risk first. The data and modeling supports this strategy as the way to save the most lives (the most black lives too). I'm not a fan of large scale restrictions/lockdowns in general but at this point I think we can all hunker down a bit longer and we will start seeing deaths drop dramatically as the most vulnerable get vaccinated.

When you say "as long as it takes" though...as long as it takes for what? It's never going away.

As long as it takes to get the mortality rates under control.

Don't read too much into it, I just didn't want anything thinking I was a denier.

what is under control?

people die from the flu every year, did those people not matter? why didnt we lock down and wear masks for them?

at what death rate % is our mortality rate now "under control" and we can go about endangering a small subset of the population to their eventual death of the flu and other communicable illnesses.

Awaiting your answers.

If a tiny percentage of people die, and you want to prevent deaths, then vaccinate the tiny percentage most likely to die first.

runningwiththetrolls1212 wrote:

what is under control?

people die from the flu every year, did those people not matter? why didnt we lock down and wear masks for them?

at what death rate % is our mortality rate now "under control" and we can go about endangering a small subset of the population to their eventual death of the flu and other communicable illnesses.

Awaiting your answers.

I don't set policy, so I can't answer that question. I can say that I would personally like to not be setting new death records every single day. That would be a good start.

I'm going to stop replying here. I can see a few people want to challenge me on masks, vaccines, what constitutes a covid death, etc... I really don't care what you think on those topics, and I don't care about your agenda. They are not worth debating. I posted here to talk about the order in which people should be vaccinated, and what I believe will be the fastest way to get back to normal.

This isn't a disputed question. Nobody is arguing that prioritizing essential workers ahead of the 65+ crowd will save lives more lives.

There's two competing theories that have too many variables to prove conclusively. Front line workers are (largely) agreed to be the first, then the question is who is next? Do we protect the end of chain or start of chain?

1) Old people have the greatest mortality from the disease (when viewed as a large group). Vaccinating these people next would provide a mitigation of risk to the most endangered group. This route most likely takes longer to eliminate COVID but does so at the lowest cost of life.

2) Old people represent the end of the transmission chain. The level of transmission FROM old people is much lower than other groups. This is a function of both higher mortality/intensity of the disease and lower social contact. The group with highest social contact is by far 18-35. This does not necessarily mean that transmission is highest here, but it is a viable argument that cutting off the source of greatest spread is the best move. This route gets ride of COVID the soonest but at greater cost of life.

In an ideal world, young people would wear masks and reduce social contact, and the plan currently in place would be best. However the world we live in shows general malaise toward transmission prevention especially among young groups.

(Not trying to make a commentary on political/social thoughts, just looking purely as a scientific question for how do you eliminate the virus).

Not a doctor wrote:

I think the strategy of vaccinating the older population first is bound to backfire. The older population can continue to isolate themselves as they have been -- they are not working, don't need to be out and about.

Better to vaccinate the people who are working, out, and potentially catching and spreading. Getting through these people first will bring the virus to its knees faster than vaccinating people who aren't spreaders.

This is the essence of Lets Run. A bunch of selfish egomaniacs who think the world revolves around them. Zero consideration for the lives and health of others, and the advice of doctors.