The Wuhan virus—how are we doing? - Page 79 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Provision of the two UN HDI indicators other than GNP.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15149668
I don't know. Supply maybe? The US Government bought supplies and paid for them before approval of the vaccine without recourse. That is my guess anyway.


I don't know what to think about the UK decision to do a single vaccination on twice as many people rather than the two course vaccination. I certainly think it is a very bad idea for medical people. They need the protection very badly.

This pandemic is out of control. Not a single place in the US you could call winning. 4000 people + per day dying and we have not hit the peak yet. All Trump's failure.
#15149924
So, a new study out: ASSESSING MANDATORY STAY-AT-HOME AND BUSINESS CLOSURE EFFECTS ON THE SPREAD OF COVID-19. I suggest downloading a copy, these days studies have a habit of disappearing if they cut against the current narrative. Here's their conclusion:

In the framework of this analysis, there is no evidence that more restrictive non-pharmaceutical interventions (“lockdowns”) contributed substantially to bending the curve of new cases in England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, or the United States in early 2020. By comparing the effectiveness of NPIs on case growth rates in countries that implemented more restrictive measures with those that implemented less restrictive measures, the evidence points away from indicating that mrNPIs provided additional meaningful benefit above and beyond lrNPIs. While modest decreases in daily growth (under 30%) cannot be excluded in a few countries, the possibility of large decreases in daily growth due to mrNPIs is incompatible with the accumulated data.

The direction of the effect size in most scenarios point towards an increase in the case growth rate, though these estimates are only distinguishable from zero in Spain (consistent with non-beneficial effect of lockdowns). Only in Iran do the estimates consistently point in the direction of additional reduction in the growth rate, yet those effects are statistically indistinguishable from zero. While it is hard to draw firm conclusions from these estimates, they are consistent with a recent analysis that identified increase transmission and cases in Hunan, China during the period of stay-at-home orders from increased intra-household density and transmission. In other words, it is possible that stay-at-home orders may facilitate transmission if they increase person-to-person contact where transmission is efficient such as closed spaces.

Our study builds on the findings of overall effectiveness of NPIs in reducing case growth rate. This has a plausible underlying behavioral mechanism: NPIs are motivated by the notion that they lead to anti-contagion behavior changes, either directly through personal compliance with the interventions, or by providing a signal about disease risk, as communicated by policy makers, which is used in deciding on individual behaviors. The degree to which risk communications motivate personal behaviors has been used to explain South Korea’s response to NPIs, where large personal behavior changes were observed following less restrictive NPIs.

This analysis ties together observations about the possible effectiveness of NPIs with COVID-19 epidemic case growth changes that appear surprisingly similar despite wide variation in national policies. Our behavioral model of NPIs – that their effectiveness depends on individual behavior for which policies provide a noisy nudge – help explain why the degree of NPI restrictiveness does not seem to explain the decline in case growth rate. Data on individual behaviors such as visits to businesses, walking, or driving show dramatic declines days to weeks prior to the implementation of business closures and mandatory stay-at-home orders in our study countries, consistent with the behavioral mechanisms noted above. These observations are consistent with a model where the severity of the risk perceived by individuals was a stronger driver of anti-contagion behaviors than the specific nature of the NPIs. In other words, reductions in social activities that led to reduction in case growth were happening prior to implementation of mrNPIs because populations in affected countries were internalizing the impact of the pandemic in China, Italy, and New York, and noting a growing set of recommendations to reduce social contacts, all of which happened before mrNPIs. This may also explain the highly variable effect sizes of the same NPI in different countries. For example the effects of international travel bans were positive (unhelpful) in Germany and negative (beneficial) in the Netherlands (Figure 2).

While this study casts doubt on any firm conclusions about the effectiveness of restrictive NPIs, it also underscores the importance of more definitive evaluations of NPI effects. NPIs can also have harms, besides any questionable benefits, and the harms may be more prominent for some NPIs than for others. For example, school closures may have very serious harms, estimated at an equivalent of 5.5 million life years for children in the US during the spring school closures alone. Considerations of harms should play a prominent role in policy decisions, especially if an NPI is ineffective at reducing the spread of infections. Of note, Sweden did not close primary schools throughout 2020 as of this writing.

While we find no evidence of large anti-contagion effects from mandatory stay-at-home and business closure policies, we should acknowledge that the underlying data and methods have important limitations. First, cross-country comparisons are difficult: countries may have different rules, cultures, and relationships between the government and citizenry. For that reason, we collected information on all countries for which subnational data on case growth was obtainable. Of course, these differences may also exist across subnational units, as demonstrated in the case of different states in the US. Additional countries could provide more evidence, especially countries that had meaningful epidemic penetration and did not use mrNPIs for epidemic control. Second, confirmed case counts are a noisy measure of disease transmission. Testing availability, personal demand for or fear of getting tested, testing guidelines, changing test characteristics, and viral evolution all interfere in the relationship between the underlying infections and case counts. Because the location and timing of policies is endogenous to perceived epidemic stage, the noise in case counts is associated with the policies, making bias possible and very difficult to eradicate. The fixed effects approach provides unbiased estimates so long as the location or timing of policies is quasi-arbitrary with respect to the outcome. This may fail to hold in this assessment of NPI effects because the underlying epidemic dynamics are non-linear, and the policies respond to – and modify – the epidemic stage. This limitation also holds for all other empirical assessments of NPI effects.

Third, our findings rest on a conceptualization, common in the literature, of NPIs as “reduced-form” interventions: an upstream policy has expected downstream effects on transmission. This allows us to use Sweden and South Korea as comparators, since they had applied less-restrictive interventions, which then enables netting out the combined effect of lrNPIs and the underlying epidemic dynamics. While contextual factors that mediate the effects of NPIs are important – countries implemented different variants of the same NPI, and the population responded differently – many analyses examining the effects of NPIs have a similar “reduced-form” structure. In that sense our comparison is positioned squarely within the literature on the effects of NPIs.

During the northern hemisphere fall and winter of 2020, many countries, especially in Europe and the US, experienced a large wave of COVID-19 morbidity and mortality. Those waves were met with new (or renewed) NPIs, including mrNPIs in some countries (e.g. England) and lrNPIs in others (e.g. Portugal) that had used mrNPIs in the first wave. The spread of infections in countries that were largely spared in the spring (e.g. Austria and Greece) further highlight the challenges and limited ability of NPIs to control the spread of this highly transmissible respiratory virus. Empirical data for the characteristics of fatalities in the later wave before mrNPIs were adopted as compared with the first wave (when mrNPIs had been used) shows that the proportion of COVID-19 deaths that occurred in nursing homes was often higher under mrNPIs rather than under less restrictive measures. This further suggest that restrictive measures do not clearly achieve protection of vulnerable populations. Some evidence also suggests that sometimes under more restrictive measures, infections may be more frequent in settings where vulnerable populations reside relative to the general population.

In summary, we fail to find strong evidence supporting a role for more restrictive NPIs in the control of COVID in early 2020. We do not question the role of all public health interventions, or of coordinated communications about the epidemic, but we fail to find an additional benefit of stay-at-home orders and business closures. The data cannot fully exclude the possibility of some benefits. However, even if they exist, these benefits may not match the numerous harms of these aggressive measures. More targeted public health interventions that more effectively reduce transmissions may be important for future epidemic control without the harms of highly restrictive measures.
#15150264
So, I've decided to make the distribution/inoculation numbers a thing every Saturday, to go with the numbers for deaths, and since it appears that the CDC updates its numbers for this around noon every day I can get them up earlier (assuming I'm not too busy). So even though its only been three days, here's the numbers per 100,000 for Saturday, ranked by number of inoculations per 100,000 administered. One note, the CDC includes numbers for places like Samoa that I haven't included on this chart, as they aren't included on my chart for deaths.

Image
#15150607
I thought I'd put this up this morning, I must have forgotten to hit the SUBMIT button. Anyway, here's the stats for deaths per million:

Image
#15150669
@Doug64 Admin Edit: Rule 2 Violation
We all know this is just a ploy to somehow damn "blue states" in an attempt to make Trump look good. :knife:
#15150688
@Godstud, these are the numbers I report, because they are the ones that matter--not the number that get infected, not even the number that get sick, but the number that die. In the end, the drop in that number is the one that will tell us when we're actually winning.
#15150704
How do these numbers help us understand why Quebec and Alberta are doing so poorly in comparison to the rest of Canada?

As someone who has friends and family in these two places, these numbers are what matter to me.
#15150708
Well obviously those must be Democrat/Blue Provinces, which explains everything. :roll:

That's all @Doug64 is concerned with, and this whole pretending to care thing is just a snow-show, or virtue signaling. He doesn't actually mean it.

If you don't believe me, there are pages and pages of him arguing about red and blue states, and only trying to show that more people die in blue ones. That's his whole shtick.
#15151132
You are now at the crossing. And you want to choose, but there is no choosing there. There’s only accepting the death that is coming.

The choosing was done a long time ago when we chose freedom instead of the police state needed to stop the pandemic.
#15151150
The choosing was done a long time ago when we chose freedom instead of the police state needed to stop the pandemic.


Sorry dude. This is a load of shit. Asking people to stay home/away from others, wear a mask and wash their hands is far from a "police state". Can people on the right ever learn to have a sense of perspective. The half a million Americans who will needlessly die have no rights. Not even to the 6' hole they will spend eternity in.

Was it a "police state" we asked our soldiers to go and die for us? We are not asking you to do that much now are we.
#15151152
Drlee wrote:
Sorry dude. This is a load of shit. Asking people to stay home/away from others, wear a mask and wash their hands is far from a "police state". Can people on the right ever learn to have a sense of perspective. The half a million Americans who will needlessly die have no rights. Not even to the 6' hole they will spend eternity in.

Was it a "police state" we asked our soldiers to go and die for us? We are not asking you to do that much now are we.



Some will believe anything..
#15151163
Drlee wrote:Sorry dude. This is a load of shit. Asking people to stay home/away from others, wear a mask and wash their hands is far from a "police state". Can people on the right ever learn to have a sense of perspective. The half a million Americans who will needlessly die have no rights. Not even to the 6' hole they will spend eternity in.

Was it a "police state" we asked our soldiers to go and die for us? We are not asking you to do that much now are we.


The Chinese used police state measures to effectively quash the virus. We did not. Asking people to do the right thing was never enough.
#15151173
Asking people to do the right thing was never enough.


Well I can't argue with this. Of course we have Republican leadership downplaying the threat and a president making fun of mask wearing. We have Republican governor one after another refusing to take the minor steps required to fix this.

All Republicans all of the time. Half a million deaths on their watch and most of them because the lacked the moral courage to do what is right. And, of course, 70 million voters who backed them
#15151213
There is a good list of countries that took a middle ground between Chinese imposed lockdowns and the American one... Taiwan, New Zealand, Australia, Thailand, South Korea, etc. and they had far more success than the USA. People were "asked". They listened.

I think it's a societal problem, that's partly to blame, to be honest. Personal rights and freedoms take precedence over society, and the society isn't willing to do anything about it, except whine impotently.
#15151337
Robert Urbanek wrote:You are now at the crossing. And you want to choose, but there is no choosing there. There’s only accepting the death that is coming.

The choosing was done a long time ago when we chose freedom instead of the police state needed to stop the pandemic.

Because when it comes to grief, the normal rules of exchange do not apply. A man would give entire nations to lift grief off his heart. And yet, you cannot buy anything with grief because grief is worthless.
#15151678
Here's one take on what might be behind the problems a number of states are having with vaccinations:

The Vaccine Ad Void: What We Have Here Is a Failure to Communicate
On Interstate 59, a neon billboard used by the Alabama Department of Public Health advises motorists to get their flu and pneumonia vaccines. Placards placed atop gas pumps around the state also promote the flu vaccine.

But the vaccine that will quell COVID-19, a virus that has killed 400,000 nationwide, crippled businesses and prompted governments to force onerous restrictions the public, gets no mention.

Karen Landers, a spokeswoman for the Alabama Department of Health, said the state has “no specific marketing campaign going on” because “the vaccine supply is less than the demand, here and nationwide.”

Alabama, though, has plenty of medicine and many residents wondering how to get it. Records show that the state has received 444,000 doses of the vaccine as of Friday, and has vaccinated 100,000 people, using around 23% of its allotted doses.

Across the U.S., 31 million doses of the COVID vaccine have been distributed as of Friday, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, while states have administered 12 million, around 38%. The vaccine produced by pharma giants Moderna and Pfizer are two-dose treatments that provide up to 95% protection.

The failure of Alabama and other states around the country to launch vaccine advertising campaigns – touting the medicine’s efficacy and informing people how and where they can receive it – is creating potentially life-threatening confusion.

President-elect Joe Biden has pledged to spend more money on vaccinations, allocating $400 billion in a plan that includes using local pharmacies (a feature borrowed from the Trump administration) and mass vaccination centers. Biden said the push will include a public awareness campaign aimed at promoting the importance of getting inoculated.

But for now the lack of advertising is striking because local and federal government agencies routinely spend large sums on public health campaigns – including warning people how to behave in response to COVID-19.

The Obama administration spent $684 million driving awareness of the Affordable Care Act starting in 2013, although it was dogged by the rollout of a federal web portal widely viewed as disastrous. The pharmaceutical industry spent $9.5 billion on digital advertising alone in 2020, according to researcher eMarketer.

Hard-to-Reach Audiences

One of the challenges of the covid vaccine, as with Obamacare, is connecting with people who are hard to reach, including those without Internet service or who aren’t avid news followers.

Yet while the vaccine is in the early stages of distribution, information on what it does and how to get it can only be found at the websites of state and county health departments.

By contrast, when the virus emerged last spring, local governments quickly took to the airwaves with ads urging people to “stay home, stay safe,” collectively spending millions of dollars on multi-platform announcements, including government-produced signage distributed to businesses notifying patrons that masks were required for entry.

The lack of comparable information about the vaccine is contributing to supply and demand mismatches.

When a Walgreens in Louisville, Ky., found itself sitting on vaccine ready to expire, it made a public announcement that anyone could get the vaccine. The store was subsequently overwhelmed.

For that last-minute move, the store was criticized by Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear, who said the vaccine needed to be held for people who deserve it in accordance with CDC guidelines.

In Michigan, under some of the most onerous shutdowns in the U.S. ordered by Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, the lack of an information campaign has confused the public.

“No one here even knows that there is a vaccine available,” said Joel Fragomeni, a Detroit-based comedian who volunteered for AstraZeneca’s clinical trial of its COVID vaccine, which is expected to be approved in the spring. “People are still mostly locked down waiting for the weekly cases report to see what can be opened and closed.”

States were presented in October with a 57-page guide to prepare distribute the vaccine, including two pages devoted to how to drive awareness among the public.

Among the suggestions: “Keep the public, public health partners, and healthcare providers well-informed about COVID-19 vaccine(s) development, recommendations, and public health’s efforts.”

It is not clear why the states or the federal government have been slow to advertise availability. Some experts say the unprecedented speed with which the medicine was developed may have caught authorities unprepared as they were preoccupied with other aspects of the pandemic.

In addition, broad confusion over who should get the first available doses has made messaging difficult.

Scant Spending on Vaccine Awareness

In Illinois, Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s office in August signed off on a $5 million ad campaign to promote masking. But the governor’s website homepage makes no mention of the vaccine, listing only new positive case rates. The state is sitting on 43% of the 1 million vaccine doses it has received and has yet to spend anything on vaccine awareness.

New York City in April launched a $10 million campaign advising residents how to behave as the virus spread. The state launched an additional campaign in July urging residents to wear masks.

New York has used less than half the vaccine it has been given, as people seek information on how and where to sign up to receive a dose.

California spent millions on billboards, social media and broadcast spots in July telling people to wear masks and keep away from each other, promoting the campaign in a press release on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s home page.

Newsom’s office last issued a statement on the vaccine in late December, noting that California would partner with CVS and Walgreens to inoculate residents of long-term care facilities. Since then, information has been so scarce that residents have begun to crowdsource details.

The Ad Council and the CDC continue to run 60-second announcements on CNN’s Headline News urging people to stay home, avoid businesses like restaurants and bars and distance from each other.

National television spots urging viewers to get a vaccine for shingles – which kills roughly 100 people a year -- are in full rotation in places like the Weather Channel.

The Ad Council, a consortium of private firms started during World War II that produces ads for the public good, has co-produced ads since the beginning of the pandemic advising people to stay home, keep away from each other and wear masks. In November it promised a $50 million campaign to drive awareness of the vaccine.

Last week, the council announced it had not yet met that goal, although it promised a campaign was forthcoming.

In an email, Ad Council spokesman Ben Dorf said that “even while many Americans have already started the vaccination process – we recognize that there is currently a lack of confidence and credible resources for people to go to, leading to mass hesitation, fear, misinformation and complacency.”

Polls contend many Americans are reluctant to take a vaccine, with the perhaps most politically opportunistic naysayer being Vice President-elect Kamala Harris, who in October said she wouldn’t take it if President Trump were telling her to. She was vaccinated in December.

Dorf promised advertising in the future, although he specified no time.

“This is the biggest issue of our lifetime and it requires an effort like never before, in terms of size, scale, speed and urgency,” he wrote.

Emails to the CDC were referred to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, which did not respond.

Pfizer, Moderna, Walgreens and CVS did not respond to calls and emails requesting information on marketing plans for the vaccine.
#15151805
What a weird world you people live in where medical products are advertised.

But I guess this makes sense if you treat medical treatments as just another commodity.

It is treating medical treatments as commodities that do not make sense.

“Nah, I don’t think I’ll buy chemotherapy this month. I think I can get a better deal at Costco on raisins.” said no one ever.
#15151808
Pants-of-dog wrote:What a weird world you people live in where medical products are advertised.

But I guess this makes sense if you treat medical treatments as just another commodity.

It is treating medical treatments as commodities that do not make sense.

“Nah, I don’t think I’ll buy chemotherapy this month. I think I can get a better deal at Costco on raisins.” said no one ever.


SHUTUP!

I want freedom of choice! I want to be able to choose between death and medical bankruptcy!
  • 1
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 85
Election 2020

And by the way, asking for "clear evidence&qu[…]

This is a tough question. I grew up reading fairyt[…]

Election 2024 Thread

We don't know. We could be in a full-on civil war[…]

The hypocrisy of the Left is extremely repulsive. […]