• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

COVID Thread 2: Operation Ludicrous Speed ! (Super Political!!!)

thatguy2016 said:
From this CNN article, the Biden admin goal is:



I am...uninspired by this goal. 100 million shots in 100 days is obviously 1 million shots per day. Over the past 7 days, we're averaging 832,000 doses administered per day. The old administration was clearly on track to reach 1 million per day pretty soon.

We need faster improvement. I don't know where we are in the supply chain pipeline, other than the fact that CDC says we currently have 19 million doses delivered and ready to be administered.

We need to move faster. Much faster.
Click to expand...

Obviously they set a goal that they think is fairly easy to obtain and have messaged the hell out of it, that's politics! I also take all of the Biden admin stories popping up about "what a mess they inherited" with a grain of salt that is intended for the Biden Admin to take credit for the "remarkable turnaround." With that being said, I have no doubt the Trump folks did an awful job and I am hopeful that the Biden folks will get this rolling more smoothly.

In NC, which has had a shaky rollout, all of my relatives over 65 have had a very easy time getting their shots this week.
 
DeaconBrews said:
1 million people receiving their first dose and 1 million receiving their second dose per day seems ambitious but possible
Click to expand...

but that's not the goal as described by CNN or by Jeff Zients; the goal is to administer one million doses total per day

 
DeaconBrews said:
I think that's doctors being careful and erring on the side of caution until the information comes out

or the deep state wants us all to wear masks in perpetuity and knows the gig is up if they release the info that we aren't carriers ;)
Click to expand...

I guess I get being careful, but saying "we don't know" instead of "early evidence shows..." or "what we know so far is incomplete, but..." is offensive to my intelligence
 
So after a widely praised inaugural address focused on the importance of truth, in a span of less than 24 hours the Biden team is called out by a *checks notes* Politico and MSNBC reporter for an untruthful statement?

 
JuiceCrewAllStar said:
I guess I get being careful, but saying "we don't know" instead of "early evidence shows..." or "what we know so far is incomplete, but..." is offensive to my intelligence
Click to expand...

I didn't realize how careful doctors are in general with what they say until you have a family member dying and are talking to them about the prognosis
 
JuiceCrewAllStar said:
I guess I get being careful, but saying "we don't know" instead of "early evidence shows..." or "what we know so far is incomplete, but..." is offensive to my intelligence
Click to expand...

Why is that offensive? I don't believe Pfizer looked to see if it stopped transmission. Therefore, we don't know. LG probably knows, but I thought just looked to see who got sick from COVID. I heard something about Moderna looking at that, but don't know specifics.
 
thatguy2016 said:
From this CNN article, the Biden admin goal is:



I am...uninspired by this goal. 100 million shots in 100 days is obviously 1 million shots per day. Over the past 7 days, we're averaging 832,000 doses administered per day. The old administration was clearly on track to reach 1 million per day pretty soon.

We need faster improvement. I don't know where we are in the supply chain pipeline, other than the fact that CDC says we currently have 19 million doses delivered and ready to be administered.

We need to move faster. Much faster.
Click to expand...

This is not so. The cupboards are bare and the national distribution doesn't exist and won't until Biden puts it into place.

It's to go faster when you have no product to distribute nor any infrastructure to use when you get some.

Given Trump's people intentionally fucking things up, it will be a miracle if we can get anywhere near 100,000,000 in a hundred days.
 
RJKarl said:
This is not so. The cupboards are bare and the national distribution doesn't exist and won't until Biden puts it into place.

It's to go faster when you have no product to distribute nor any infrastructure to use when you get some.

Given Trump's people intentionally fucking things up, it will be a miracle if we can get anywhere near 100,000,000 in a hundred days.
Click to expand...

again...we have administered an average of 832,000 doses in the past 7 days, and CDC says we have 19 million doses distributed to states awaiting administration.

I would not classify improving from 832,000 to "anywhere near" 1,000,000 over the course of 14 weeks to be a "miracle"
 
TAG1615 said:
Obviously they set a goal that they think is fairly easy to obtain and have messaged the hell out of it, that's politics! I also take all of the Biden admin stories popping up about "what a mess they inherited" with a grain of salt that is intended for the Biden Admin to take credit for the "remarkable turnaround." With that being said, I have no doubt the Trump folks did an awful job and I am hopeful that the Biden folks will get this rolling more smoothly.

In NC, which has had a shaky rollout, all of my relatives over 65 have had a very easy time getting their shots this week.
Click to expand...

After the disastrous last 4 years and the abysmal vaccine roll out over the last two months, seems to make a lot of sense to build confidence that your government has competence by publicly starting achievable goals and then achieving those goals. It's easy to say that administering 100 million vaccines is weak sauce, but we were supposedly going to have 20 million vaccinations by December 31st and we go to 2.1 million doses.
 
Tobacco Road said:
Why is that offensive? I don't believe Pfizer looked to see if it stopped transmission. Therefore, we don't know. LG probably knows, but I thought just looked to see who got sick from COVID. I heard something about Moderna looking at that, but don't know specifics.
Click to expand...

it's not insulting if they truly don't know -- if that is the case, then I loop back to my first question as to why they don't know

it is if they are not sharing because they don't trust that I can handle the nuanced information appropriately
 
Simple explanation is that it’s possible because in the trials there wasn’t necessarily a 100% reduction in disease but instead close to 100% in severe disease and death. That means that with the vaccine the virus has the ability to replicate and most likely has the ability to be passed on. The criteria for what makes one able to pass on the virus in comparison to another that can’t that has received the vaccine will pretty much be as random as current spreaders are. The caveat would be is the replication high enough to actually be transmissible? The question you want answered in a trial is currently an impossible trial to run because of the level of community spread and contact tracing. No idea where someone gets the virus and no idea if that virus came from a vaccinate intermediate.

The safest bet is until vaccination rates are higher everyone needs to wear a mask. It’s also most likely still a messaging thing so people don’t just stop wearing masks since getting them to wear it in the first place was so difficult. If you want some random percentages then.

Two dose fully vaccinated individual- 10% chance of getting sick, 20-40 percent chance of having virus to transmit, 5% chance of transmitting the virus to someone else.
 
Tobacco Road said:
Why is that offensive? I don't believe Pfizer looked to see if it stopped transmission. Therefore, we don't know. LG probably knows, but I thought just looked to see who got sick from COVID. I heard something about Moderna looking at that, but don't know specifics.
Click to expand...

There was an interesting article from the Times about this and not repeating the mistake of downplaying the use of masks. A big part of the "you don't need to wear a mask" opener in early virus times was a fear that normal folks would buy up the entire mask supply and threaten hospital safety. The actual result was that people leveraged that dishonesty into support for anti-masking. Experts knew masks would be effective, they just didn't know exactly how effective.

Now they are again being borderline dishonest in the messaging around the vaccine risk. The majority of articles say things like "it's still only 95% so you are at risk even after the vaccine, that after you're vaccinated you can still get, carry, and transmit the virus to others" or some spin off those two ideas. The goal is to ensure that in the early months of vaccine distribution everyone doesn't act like we're all good and stop wearing masks. They don't trust folks to get both shots and wait 3 weeks before green-lighting normal activities. But again the dishonesty is fueling distrust in the vaccines, a misunderstanding for how incredibly effective these vaccines are, and how critical it is for folks to get them as soon as possible.

They quoted a number of doctors who said things like, "Is it possible that someone who is a couple weeks past dose 2 to transmit the virus to someone? Technically, maybe. Have I ever heard of that happening in the entire history of viruses, vaccines, and modern disease prevention? No. Never."
 
FWIW, I have a friend who claims to be getting his first dose of the vaccine this Tuesday. He works in manufacturing, is under 65, and doesn't have a condition that increases the risk of severe illness. This is in Durham Co. I'm assuming he falls into the frontline essential worker group. Assuming he actually gets his first dose on Tuesday I'm guessing that means that things might be picking up?
 
I saw people in Georgia are getting it earlier than they should under the guise of claiming to be a caregiver for someone 65+
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top