COVID-19 Disinformation in one graph

[jmotivator]

I'm not "trying" to show anything. I'm actually showing the number of new confirmed cases that happened between December 1, 2021 and February 28, 2022 (i.e., during the Omicron surge) in a variety of states with a various conditions and approaches to dealing with the pandemic. Take from it what you will.

You didn't have a year listed, and you linked to a page that wasn't the table you posted, and you only referenced Omicron in the last column. How was anyone supposed to know that the first two columns were 2021/2022 and not 2020/2021 wihout redoing your work... hence the question.

Out of curriosity, what do you think caused the rapid decline in Omicron cases over the last month?

 

[Greenbeard]

Tell me, what "science" changed from January to today that has lead to waves of ending mask mandates at the state and federal level?

"Science" hasn't changed, circumstances have. Here's two stories out of Boston in the last day or so: one documenting a 99% drop in COVID (obtained via Biobot's ongoing wastewater sampling) in the area in recent weeks, and other announcing the city of Boston will drop its mask mandate this weekend.

Is it difficult to understand the causal relationship?

 

[jmotivator]

"Science" hasn't changed, circumstances have. Here's two stories out of Boston in the last day or so: one documenting a 99% drop in COVID (obtained via Biobot's ongoing wastewater sampling) in the area in recent weeks, and other announcing the city of Boston will drop its mask mandate this weekend.

Is it difficult to understand the causal relationship?

And what caused that drop?

Because a month ago it was all about the masks and vaccinations... and yet...

 

[RAMOSS]

And what caused that drop?

Because a month ago it was all about the masks and vaccinations... and yet...

And, one thing that caused that drop was masks and vaccinations.

 

[jmotivator]

And, one thing that caused that drop was masks and vaccinations.

Was it? Let's contemplate your argument.....

Vaccinations: The Fully vaccinated rate in the US went from 63.8% to 65% in that time.... are you saying that 1.2% vaccination solved Omicron (which, by the way, was already rather resistent to vaccinations), Boosted (which a month ago we were hearing would be the new requirement) went from 41.5% to 43.8%... did the 2.3% fix COVID?

Masks: If masks caused the decline then it would be foolish to end the mandates and have a room full of maskless septegenarians at the SOTU last night... because there is still a fairly high rate of Omicron in the wild, so if masks did anything then they just undid it.

So it doesn't appear to be vaccination rate or masks... or the Biden administration doesn't seem to think so by its actions.

 

[RAMOSS]

Was it? Let's contemplate your argument.....

Vaccinations: The Fully vaccinated rate in the US went from 63.8% to 65% in that time.... are you saying that 1.2% vaccination solved Omicron (which, by the way, was already rather resistent to vaccinations), Boosted (which a month ago we were hearing would be the new requirement) went from 41.5% to 43.8%... did the 2.3% fix COVID?

Masks: If masks caused the decline then it would be foolish to end the mandates and have a room full of maskless septegenarians at the SOTU last night... because there is still a fairly high rate of Omicron in the wild, so if masks did anything then they just undid it.

So it doesn't appear to be vaccination rate or masks... or the Biden administration doesn't seem to think so by its actions.

It insured that the surge in omincron wasn't nearly as severe as it would have been without vaccinated. Although less effective than against delta, someone who is unvaxxinated is 5 times more likely to get sick, and 9 times more likely to die.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

A "den of dolts" would generally believe what they are told.

I would argue that the media's insistence on making the exception the rule in COVID-19 deaths left a lot of people with the impression that the death of anyone under 25 years old is common for political purposes, rather than extremely rare.

The response to COVID should have ALWAYS targeted those 65 and older while leaving the rest to live their lives. The group overwhelmingly impacted have the least connection to the workforce... and yet we rolled out a one size fits all approach (well, except for elites who never followed the rules) that needlessly tanked the American economy.

Stupid people are more likely to have poor critical thinking skills and are thus more likely to fall victim to misinformation and conspiracy theories.

That said, this type of misinformation about COVID deaths is just plain old sensationalization. The healthy guy in his 20s dying of COVID is a bigger news story than the 84 year old dying of COVID is. So people believe such deaths are more likely than they are. It's no different than the guy on a quiet suburban street that heavily arms himself out of fear of home invasion.

 

[jmotivator]

It insured that the surge in omincron wasn't nearly as severe as it would have been without vaccinated. Although less effective than against delta, someone who is unvaxxinated is 5 times more likely to get sick, and 9 times more likely to die.

If it stopped the surge, then ending it while there is still a high rate of Omicron will start a new surge, would it not? Did Fauci negotiate a cease fire with The Omicrons?

 

[jmotivator]

Stupid people are more likely to have poor critical thinking skills and are thus more likely to fall victim to misinformation and conspiracy theories.

That said, this type of misinformation about COVID deaths is just plain old sensationalization. The healthy guy in his 20s dying of COVID is a bigger news story than the 84 year old dying of COVID is. So people believe such deaths are more likely than they are. It's no different than the guy on a quiet suburban street that heavily arms himself out of fear of home invasion.

So then, again, why such a high rate in both parties getting the facts so wrong on COVID deaths? If it was idiots listening to people lying about the threat to young people.. who was lying to them?

 

[RAMOSS]

If it stopped the surge, then ending it while there is still a high rate of Omicron will start a new surge, would it not? Did Fauci negotiate a cease fire with The Omicrons?

It helped reduce the surge, and save many lives. We did get very fortunate , by pure chance, that omincron , both the BA.1 and BA.2 versions were much less damaging that previous strains, despite their increased infection rate. The ones mostly getting sick and hospitalized were the people who refused to get vaccinated. THe ones that got vaccinated, and still got sick has milder cases on average

 

[jmotivator]

It helped reduce the surge, and save many lives. We did get very fortunate , by pure chance, that omincron , both the BA.1 and BA.2 versions were much less damaging that previous strains, despite their increased infection rate. The ones mostly getting sick and hospitalized were the people who refused to get vaccinated. THe ones that got vaccinated, and still got sick has milder cases on average

Haha! "Saved Lives!" plus "It wasn't that deadly anyway!" .... and again, if it is at all deadly, why end the mask mandate while there is still a high rate of infection?

 

[jaeger19]

A "den of dolts" would generally believe what they are told.

I would argue that the media's insistence on making the exception the rule in COVID-19 deaths left a lot of people with the impression that the death of anyone under 25 years old is common for political purposes, rather than extremely rare.

The response to COVID should have ALWAYS targeted those 65 and older while leaving the rest to live their lives. The group overwhelmingly impacted have the least connection to the workforce... and yet we rolled out a one size fits all approach (well, except for elites who never followed the rules) that needlessly tanked the American economy.

Okay.. please explain how you would target those 65 and older while leaving the rest to live their lives.
Lets please hear your detailed medical expertise on how you would target those 65 and older.

Lets hear it.

 

[jaeger19]

And what caused that drop?

Because a month ago it was all about the masks and vaccinations... and yet...

Less people getting infected.. due to things like masks and vaccinations.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Out of curriosity, what do you think caused the rapid decline in Omicron cases over the last month?

It's too soon for it to be due to warming weather, so the only option I can think of is herd immunity.

 

[bluesmoke]

Tell me, what "science" changed from January to today that has lead to waves of ending mask mandates at the state and federal level? Why is the SOTU maskless, and DC schools still masked? Again, look at the facts vs perception in the OP.

Many said that they can't agree with the science community conclusion that COVID was a killer, and that the vaccine was the best solution than "natural" immunity, until they reviewed all the facts and came to their own conclusion. I am calling them, IMO, the dumbest. So, is COVID not a killer disease? Is vaccine not the best response? Refute what I say or go away. I made a claim. The evidence is out there, ad nauseum.

 

[Vern]

View attachment 67377828

One has to wonder who misinformed the populace so badly...

I'm not seeing a smoking gun here. maybe if you found someone who was telling people 80% of deaths are people over 65 or 92% are not people over 55 or 97% are not people over 45 then you'd have a smoking gun. I'm surprised the error between democrats and republicans is so small. The conservative media is the one downplaying the severity of covid and attacking the science of vaccines and maskes, you'd think they'd get out a better message.

 

[bluesmoke]

Sgt. Schultz? You're showing your age lol

Not too much showing of age. I can still remember! Anyway, I was reminiscing of Wolfgang, the WW2 German soldier, played by Arte Johnson on Laugh-in, who would hide behind potted plants spying on people and after overhearing what some would say would respond ”Verrrrry interesting…but stupid!”, to answer your question. I added the "h" to "stupid" because I liked the Sgt. Schultz pronunciation better.

 

[bluesmoke]

These are among the ones I spoke to. The dumbest of the dumb.

It's very difficult narrowing it down to the dumbest of the dumb, though I tried perhaps in vain, when there's so many of them. If we all put our #1 choices together, it would be a Carl Sagan plethora.

 

[jmotivator]

Okay.. please explain how you would target those 65 and older while leaving the rest to live their lives.
Lets please hear your detailed medical expertise on how you would target those 65 and older.

Lets hear it.

You tell the 65+ crowd, and the 55+ to a lesser extent, that COVID-19 most specifically is life threatening, that if you are 65 or over that you have as high as a 20% risk of severe life threatening complications, and so you should avoid crowded places, you should remain home when possible and then you set up a targeted welfare check/assistence if needed that would assist the elderly with getting their basic needs met in their home without having to go out.

From their you have established 1) The real threat, and 2) Given the most vulnerable an optional method to reduce exposure.

No mandates for anyone. Those who are in a vulnerability group (I'm in 2, borderline 3) would have the option to quarantine, or accept the risk. I've been working in an office the whole time while young healthy people were sent home/laid off. It is/was insane. But if I catch COVID 19 and some point then it will be through my own choices, but I accept the risk.

If the others who are vulnerable chose not to take advantage of programs that would have allowed them to self quarantine then they made their choice like everyone else.

 

[Vern]

You tell the 65+ crowd, and the 55+ to a lesser extent, that COVID-19 most specifically is life threatening, that if you are 65 or over that you have as high as a 20% risk of severe life threatening complications, and so you should avoid crowded places, you should remain home when possible and then you set up a targeted welfare check/assistence if needed that would assist the elderly with getting their basic needs met in their home without having to go out.

From their you have established 1) The real threat, and 2) Given the most vulnerable an optional method to reduce exposure.

No mandates for anyone. Those who are in a vulnerability group (I'm in 2, borderline 3) would have the option to quarantine, or accept the risk. I've been working in an office the whole time while young healthy people were sent home/laid off. It is/was insane. But if I catch COVID 19 and some point then it will be through my own choices, but I accept the risk.

If the others who are vulnerable chose not to take advantage of programs that would have allowed them to self quarantine then they made their choice like everyone else.

again jm, I'm not seeing a smoking gun here. There is exactly the reason the vaccination effort was organized by age. Everybody knew they were higher risk. And people getting vaccinated who are a lower risk is not just for their protection but to help protect others and prevent the spread and mutation. so what 18-29 year olds die less frequently and get hospitalized less frequently but they are helping spread it killing others more vulnerable. its time to put America first instead of your obedience to conservatism.

Cases, Data, and Surveillance

Cases, data, and surveillance to track and analyze COVID-19.

www.cdc.gov

 

[eohrnberger]

You tell the 65+ crowd, and the 55+ to a lesser extent, that COVID-19 most specifically is life threatening, that if you are 65 or over that you have as high as a 20% risk of severe life threatening complications, and so you should avoid crowded places, you should remain home when possible and then you set up a targeted welfare check/assistence if needed that would assist the elderly with getting their basic needs met in their home without having to go out.

From their you have established 1) The real threat, and 2) Given the most vulnerable an optional method to reduce exposure.

No mandates for anyone. Those who are in a vulnerability group (I'm in 2, borderline 3) would have the option to quarantine, or accept the risk. I've been working in an office the whole time while young healthy people were sent home/laid off. It is/was insane. But if I catch COVID 19 and some point then it will be through my own choices, but I accept the risk.

If the others who are vulnerable chose not to take advantage of programs that would have allowed them to self quarantine then they made their choice like everyone else.

This is very much how Florida triaged their population, focusing the most concern and resources to the ones most at risk.
Seemed to have a great deal of common sense to this approach.

 

[jmotivator]

again jm, I'm not seeing a smoking gun here. There is exactly the reason the vaccination effort was organized by age. Everybody knew they were higher risk. And people getting vaccinated who are a lower risk is not just for their protection but to help protect others and prevent the spread and mutation. so what 18-29 year olds die less frequently and get hospitalized less frequently but they are helping spread it killing others more vulnerable. its time to put America first instead of your obedience to conservatism.

View attachment 67378038

Cases, Data, and Surveillance

Cases, data, and surveillance to track and analyze COVID-19.

www.cdc.gov

Except I' not talking the vaccination specifically, though the argument there would also be to prioritize the most vunerable, but no need to mandate it.

My argument primarily is about the masks, shutting down schools, closing restaurants and private businesses and all the other nonsense, was not necessary if you provided for those who were actually at greatest risk and gave them the option to opt in to a voluntary quarantine.

It would not have only been more effective, but far cheaper than the one-size fits all solution to a virus that was not one size fits all.

 

[Vern]

Except I' not talking the vaccination specifically, though the argument there would also be to prioritize the most vunerable, but no need to mandate it.

My argument primarily is about the masks, shutting down schools, closing restaurants and private businesses and all the other nonsense, was not necessary if you provided for those who were actually at greatest risk and gave them the option to opt in to a voluntary quarantine.

It would not have only been more effective, but far cheaper than the one-size fits all solution to a virus that was not one size fits all.

2020 called, they want their narrative back. I went to the Caribbean last summer. I went to Vegas 3 times last year. (I'm literally conteplating hoping on a plane Saturday to go to vegas) I eat out at restaurants whenever I want. I cant believe wearing a mask is really a point of contention with you. This required the slightest of efforts to slow the spread and save lives.

And the only "one size fits all" I saw was travel related. Each state did its own thing.

 

[donhughesmusic]

View attachment 67377828

One has to wonder who misinformed the populace so badly...

Older people are still people. I don't care if someone dies at 21 or 91. A death due to Covid is still a death due to Covid.

 

[Vern]

This is very much how Florida triaged their population, focusing the most concern and resources to the ones most at risk.
Seemed to have a great deal of common sense to this approach.

wrong as usual Eohrn. DeSantis was preventing schools and municipalities from implementing their own mask requirements when the Delta was ravaging Florida.