agip wrote:
The US is rocking the covid response.
I continue to be appreciative of these informative updates, agip.
Thanks.
agip wrote:
The US is rocking the covid response.
I continue to be appreciative of these informative updates, agip.
Thanks.
Marietta Tar Heel wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
The new variant is actually a GOOD thing. It is more contagious, but it is less lethal. That is typical of what viruses do. Don't want to kill the host, you know. The vaccines still work on it, and the fools who won't get the vaccine have less of a chance of dying from it.
A person can't be this fvking stupid.
1) this strain has been estimated to be 50% more contagious.
2) it has not been shown to be more or less severe or lethal
3) being more contagious means more people get it which means more people are hospitalized
4) if it is 50% more contagious, it has to be a hell of a lot (fancy medical term) less severe or lethal (which hasn't been shown yet) in order not to overrun our hospitals or end of killing more people.
Do you people like you even have half a fvking brain?
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/a-new-strain-of-coronavirus-what-you-should-know
Dr. Anthony Fauci on Sunday warned that new data suggests that the strain of COVID-19 that first emerged in the United Kingdom could be deadlier.
“We need to assume now what has been circulating in the UK does have an increase in virulence, meaning the power of the virus to cause more damage, including death,” Fauci told CBS anchor Margaret Brennan on “Face the Nation.”
Fauci said that British officials initially indicated that the new variant wasn’t more lethal, but have now reversed course following a study that suggested it was around 30 percent more deadly in older adults.
The average death rate among 60-year-olds in the UK had been about 10 per 10,000.
But with the new strain, there had been around 13 or 14 deaths in the same population, USA Today reported.
“We want to look at the data ourselves, but we have every reason to believe them. They’re a very competent group,” Fauci said.
As someome posted earlier in this thread:
https://www.newsweek.com/fauci-uk-covid-variant-clarion-call-vaccine-1562301Fauci:
"Because the more cases you get, even though on a one to one basis, it's not more virulent—meaning it doesn't make you more sick or more likely to die—just by numbers alone, the more cases you have, the more hospitalizations you're going to have. And the more hospitalizations you have, the more deaths you're going to have."
Flagpole, you're an idiot.
kibitzer wrote:
agip wrote:
The US is rocking the covid response.
I continue to be appreciative of these informative updates, agip.
Thanks.
I do these things mostly to keep myself sane but I'm glad others read the posts.
Marietta Tar Heel wrote:
https://nypost.com/2021/01/24/fauci-warns-uk-strain-now-appears-to-be-more-deadly/Marietta Tar Heel wrote:
A person can't be this fvking stupid.
1) this strain has been estimated to be 50% more contagious.
2) it has not been shown to be more or less severe or lethal
3) being more contagious means more people get it which means more people are hospitalized
4) if it is 50% more contagious, it has to be a hell of a lot (fancy medical term) less severe or lethal (which hasn't been shown yet) in order not to overrun our hospitals or end of killing more people.
Do you people like you even have half a fvking brain?
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/a-new-strain-of-coronavirus-what-you-should-knowDr. Anthony Fauci on Sunday warned that new data suggests that the strain of COVID-19 that first emerged in the United Kingdom could be deadlier.
“We need to assume now what has been circulating in the UK does have an increase in virulence, meaning the power of the virus to cause more damage, including death,” Fauci told CBS anchor Margaret Brennan on “Face the Nation.”
Fauci said that British officials initially indicated that the new variant wasn’t more lethal, but have now reversed course following a study that suggested it was around 30 percent more deadly in older adults.
The average death rate among 60-year-olds in the UK had been about 10 per 10,000.
But with the new strain, there had been around 13 or 14 deaths in the same population, USA Today reported.
“We want to look at the data ourselves, but we have every reason to believe them. They’re a very competent group,” Fauci said.
As someome posted earlier in this thread:
https://www.newsweek.com/fauci-uk-covid-variant-clarion-call-vaccine-1562301Fauci:
"Because the more cases you get, even though on a one to one basis, it's not more virulent—meaning it doesn't make you more sick or more likely to die—just by numbers alone, the more cases you have, the more hospitalizations you're going to have. And the more hospitalizations you have, the more deaths you're going to have."
Flagpole, you're an idiot.
aaaand prepare for a pitched battle on the definition of 'good.
in a post with c.20 nested quotes.
awesome.
FP is wrong, but he'll probably dodge and weave, defining terms differently than anyone else would.
agip wrote:
Monkeys typing wrote:
Report that House will send article of impeachment to the Senate this evening.
https://www.npr.org/2021/01/25/960130551/house-poised-to-transmit-article-of-impeachment-against-trump-to-senateThe public evidence doesn't seem to be sufficient to sway enough Republicans to convict and I don't see why they'd do this unless they felt there was a good chance of conviction.
This suggests that there is non-public evidence from investigations that they think is more compelling. I guess we can't rule out that the handlers are making a serious blunder, bringing a case that isn't sufficient to break the partisan's lines.
you are being too cynical
the dems are trying to do the right thing
to tell trump and other future presidents that they will be punished if they pull this stuff again.
That's what they'd like to do, but if they bring the case to the Senate and fail to convict, then isn't the lesson to morally-deficient future presidents that they won't be punished as long as they can keep their own party on board?
That is, I'm trying to distinguish between the morally correct thing and doing the politically correct thing. Politically, I think it's a mistake to bring a case to convict that fails. Tactically, I think waiting to see what comes out of the 1/6 investigations (which they may already have) and the two NY State cases may weaken Trump's hold on the party further. Waiting also has the advantage of not distracting from starting up the Biden agenda.
agip wrote:
The US is rocking the covid response.
Our # of people vaccinated keeps stairstepping up - to an average of 1.4 million per day now.
Still just 0.91% of the population totally vaccinated, but that will start rising soon. 5.25% have had one shot.
New cases down 32%, deaths down 7%. Cases continue to fall very quickly.
Pretty soon I suspect the talk will change to successes in the US vaccination rollout, rather than focusing on problems.
THe UK is also doing well - cases down 40%! although deaths still at all time highs.
9.36% of the UK has had one shot - best of the big nations.
Israel cases down 17%. Deaths continue to climb to new highs, unfortunately. Although in the key vaccinated cohort case counts are dropping very fast, which is great news.
After a very slow start, Georgia is now greatly increased vaccinations.
For quite a while we were last among states in both percent of vaccine administered and percent of residents recieving at least one dose. Georgia is now up to 646K vaccines adminstered and 58% of allocation used - ~middle third of the states. Because of the slower rollout only ~0.7% of the population has been fully vaccinated though.
Trollminator wrote:
Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:
They hate the people who hate her. That's more important than anything else.
Yes, which means the scummier she is the more potential she has to own the libs.
Also, these people were always lied to and simply have a preference for scapegoats and victimhood. They don’t want to hear anything about accountability and that their situation could be better if they change or try a bit harder. They want someone else to blame and the GOP loves servicing that demand.
How would becoming the governor of the the 34th largest state be owning the libs? The people of Arkansas can elect whomever they want and it will have zero impact on national politics.
Monkeys typing wrote:
agip wrote:
you are being too cynical
the dems are trying to do the right thing
to tell trump and other future presidents that they will be punished if they pull this stuff again.
That's what they'd like to do, but if they bring the case to the Senate and fail to convict, then isn't the lesson to morally-deficient future presidents that they won't be punished as long as they can keep their own party on board?
That is, I'm trying to distinguish between the morally correct thing and doing the politically correct thing. Politically, I think it's a mistake to bring a case to convict that fails. Tactically, I think waiting to see what comes out of the 1/6 investigations (which they may already have) and the two NY State cases may weaken Trump's hold on the party further. Waiting also has the advantage of not distracting from starting up the Biden agenda.
I think being impeached is punishment in and of itself, regardless of being convicted.
And there will always be the threat of removal, even if it doesn't happen this time.
At some point a president will reconsider acting badly because he saw Trump impeached and have a majority of senators vote for his removal and banishment from fed politics.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
Yes, which means the scummier she is the more potential she has to own the libs.
Also, these people were always lied to and simply have a preference for scapegoats and victimhood. They don’t want to hear anything about accountability and that their situation could be better if they change or try a bit harder. They want someone else to blame and the GOP loves servicing that demand.
How would becoming the governor of the the 34th largest state be owning the libs? The people of Arkansas can elect whomever they want and it will have zero impact on national politics.
1. her being elected will show that Trumpers can win big elections. Her success would bring more trumpers to the ring. Bad.
2. She is famous. She will be in many news stories and therefore influence the nation. She will encourage others to lie. bad.
3. She is a bad person and a massive liar. Having a state led by a liar is a very bad thing.
Maybe we'll now get to see if Rudy actually has these "boxes of evidence" that he claims to have.
agip wrote:
I think being impeached is punishment in and of itself, regardless of being convicted.
Agreed, the House passing the articles, particularly with some bipartisan support is sends a strong message. Removal would be far stronger, but in the current environment it is uncertain to play out that way unless they have a more damaging case than public evidence suggests. By more damaging, I mean that Republican Senators necessarily see more risk to their political career from not convicting than vice versa.
And there will always be the threat of removal, even if it doesn't happen this time.
At some point a president will reconsider acting badly because he saw Trump impeached and have a majority of senators vote for his removal and banishment from fed politics.
My point really is that going for removal and failing diminishes the House actions in the eyes of the Republican part of the electorate. There isn't obvious imminent danger if the House doesn't forward the articles of impeachment to the Senate forcing a trial and they can hold off indefinitely (the two year House session really). In my view there are net advantages to waiting.
Monkeys typing wrote:
agip wrote:
I think being impeached is punishment in and of itself, regardless of being convicted.
Agreed, the House passing the articles, particularly with some bipartisan support is sends a strong message. Removal would be far stronger, but in the current environment it is uncertain to play out that way unless they have a more damaging case than public evidence suggests. By more damaging, I mean that Republican Senators necessarily see more risk to their political career from not convicting than vice versa.
And there will always be the threat of removal, even if it doesn't happen this time.
At some point a president will reconsider acting badly because he saw Trump impeached and have a majority of senators vote for his removal and banishment from fed politics.
My point really is that going for removal and failing diminishes the House actions in the eyes of the Republican part of the electorate. There isn't obvious imminent danger if the House doesn't forward the articles of impeachment to the Senate forcing a trial and they can hold off indefinitely (the two year House session really). In my view there are net advantages to waiting.
I hear you and who knows..politics is the softest of all sciences...but seems to be the longer they wait the more forgiving of trump voters will be. They'll start forgetting all the crimes. People do long for a strongman and will start feeling nostalgia for trump in the near future.
And they want to be ablet to prepare for midterms after measuring the fallout from all this
and it will seem lame...to rush to impeachment and then wait forever for the trial.
They've got to get this done quickly. I like this approach...put it off a few weeks so Joe can get some momentum and then do the trial.
Marietta Tar Heel wrote:
https://nypost.com/2021/01/24/fauci-warns-uk-strain-now-appears-to-be-more-deadly/Marietta Tar Heel wrote:
A person can't be this fvking stupid.
1) this strain has been estimated to be 50% more contagious.
2) it has not been shown to be more or less severe or lethal
3) being more contagious means more people get it which means more people are hospitalized
4) if it is 50% more contagious, it has to be a hell of a lot (fancy medical term) less severe or lethal (which hasn't been shown yet) in order not to overrun our hospitals or end of killing more people.
Do you people like you even have half a fvking brain?
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/a-new-strain-of-coronavirus-what-you-should-knowDr. Anthony Fauci on Sunday warned that new data suggests that the strain of COVID-19 that first emerged in the United Kingdom could be deadlier.
“We need to assume now what has been circulating in the UK does have an increase in virulence, meaning the power of the virus to cause more damage, including death,” Fauci told CBS anchor Margaret Brennan on “Face the Nation.”
Fauci said that British officials initially indicated that the new variant wasn’t more lethal, but have now reversed course following a study that suggested it was around 30 percent more deadly in older adults.
The average death rate among 60-year-olds in the UK had been about 10 per 10,000.
But with the new strain, there had been around 13 or 14 deaths in the same population, USA Today reported.
“We want to look at the data ourselves, but we have every reason to believe them. They’re a very competent group,” Fauci said.
As someome posted earlier in this thread:
https://www.newsweek.com/fauci-uk-covid-variant-clarion-call-vaccine-1562301Fauci:
"Because the more cases you get, even though on a one to one basis, it's not more virulent—meaning it doesn't make you more sick or more likely to die—just by numbers alone, the more cases you have, the more hospitalizations you're going to have. And the more hospitalizations you have, the more deaths you're going to have."
Flagpole, you're an idiot.
Umm...NOPE, NOT an idiot. That is EXACTLY what I said...again, from Fauci's mouth to my wife's ear. Don't test me on this, or I will post what I said earlier.
agip wrote:
Marietta Tar Heel wrote:
https://nypost.com/2021/01/24/fauci-warns-uk-strain-now-appears-to-be-more-deadly/Dr. Anthony Fauci on Sunday warned that new data suggests that the strain of COVID-19 that first emerged in the United Kingdom could be deadlier.
“We need to assume now what has been circulating in the UK does have an increase in virulence, meaning the power of the virus to cause more damage, including death,” Fauci told CBS anchor Margaret Brennan on “Face the Nation.”
Fauci said that British officials initially indicated that the new variant wasn’t more lethal, but have now reversed course following a study that suggested it was around 30 percent more deadly in older adults.
The average death rate among 60-year-olds in the UK had been about 10 per 10,000.
But with the new strain, there had been around 13 or 14 deaths in the same population, USA Today reported.
“We want to look at the data ourselves, but we have every reason to believe them. They’re a very competent group,” Fauci said.
As someome posted earlier in this thread:
https://www.newsweek.com/fauci-uk-covid-variant-clarion-call-vaccine-1562301Fauci:
"Because the more cases you get, even though on a one to one basis, it's not more virulent—meaning it doesn't make you more sick or more likely to die—just by numbers alone, the more cases you have, the more hospitalizations you're going to have. And the more hospitalizations you have, the more deaths you're going to have."
Flagpole, you're an idiot.
aaaand prepare for a pitched battle on the definition of 'good.
in a post with c.20 nested quotes.
awesome.
FP is wrong, but he'll probably dodge and weave, defining terms differently than anyone else would.
Not true. I am NOT wrong. What I said is 100% correct...viruses that mutate are "presumed likely" to be less deadly. This is a one-off. It means (and is precisely what I meant) that the virus has less of a chance of killing the host. The fact that it spreads even more easily than it did so that ultimately more people MIGHT catch it and die from it (sheer numbers are sheer numbers after all) doesn't change the fact that if YOU get it, YOU likely have a greater chance of survival than if you caught the original.
Again, we still have to see how this shakes out. It COULD be that they discover these variants are MORE deadly than the original, but other than the very narrow definition of affecting more people, that has yet to be determined.
Flagpole wrote:
agip wrote:
aaaand prepare for a pitched battle on the definition of 'good.
in a post with c.20 nested quotes.
awesome.
FP is wrong, but he'll probably dodge and weave, defining terms differently than anyone else would.
Not true. I am NOT wrong. What I said is 100% correct...viruses that mutate are "presumed likely" to be less deadly. This is a one-off. It means (and is precisely what I meant) that the virus has less of a chance of killing the host. The fact that it spreads even more easily than it did so that ultimately more people MIGHT catch it and die from it (sheer numbers are sheer numbers after all) doesn't change the fact that if YOU get it, YOU likely have a greater chance of survival than if you caught the original.
Again, we still have to see how this shakes out. It COULD be that they discover these variants are MORE deadly than the original, but other than the very narrow definition of affecting more people, that has yet to be determined.
right, we're fighting over the definition of 'good.' as I predicted.
FP seems to be saying 'If one individual had to choose between the old covid and the new more contagious covid, then she should choose the new one.'
Everyone else on the planet is saying something different. We all understand that a more contagious covid strain means more cases and therefore more total deaths.
lame argument.
and
FP: .viruses that mutate are "presumed likely" to be less deadly.
World: BREAKING: UK Prime Minister Johnson says there is some evidence a new Covid variant first identified in the country is more deadly
agip wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Not true. I am NOT wrong. What I said is 100% correct...viruses that mutate are "presumed likely" to be less deadly. This is a one-off. It means (and is precisely what I meant) that the virus has less of a chance of killing the host. The fact that it spreads even more easily than it did so that ultimately more people MIGHT catch it and die from it (sheer numbers are sheer numbers after all) doesn't change the fact that if YOU get it, YOU likely have a greater chance of survival than if you caught the original.
Again, we still have to see how this shakes out. It COULD be that they discover these variants are MORE deadly than the original, but other than the very narrow definition of affecting more people, that has yet to be determined.
right, we're fighting over the definition of 'good.' as I predicted.
FP seems to be saying 'If one individual had to choose between the old covid and the new more contagious covid, then she should choose the new one.'
Everyone else on the planet is saying something different. We all understand that a more contagious covid strain means more cases and therefore more total deaths.
lame argument.
You were right. I thought he had enough to humilty to admit that his statement "the new variant is actually a GOOD thing" was incorrect now that Fauci (whom he cites as the family expert) explictity said otherwise.
My apologies to everyone for starting this up again.
agip wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Not true. I am NOT wrong. What I said is 100% correct...viruses that mutate are "presumed likely" to be less deadly. This is a one-off. It means (and is precisely what I meant) that the virus has less of a chance of killing the host. The fact that it spreads even more easily than it did so that ultimately more people MIGHT catch it and die from it (sheer numbers are sheer numbers after all) doesn't change the fact that if YOU get it, YOU likely have a greater chance of survival than if you caught the original.
Again, we still have to see how this shakes out. It COULD be that they discover these variants are MORE deadly than the original, but other than the very narrow definition of affecting more people, that has yet to be determined.
right, we're fighting over the definition of 'good.' as I predicted.
FP seems to be saying 'If one individual had to choose between the old covid and the new more contagious covid, then she should choose the new one.'
Everyone else on the planet is saying something different. We all understand that a more contagious covid strain means more cases and therefore more total deaths.
lame argument.
NOT a lame argument at all.
I even accounted for this earlier:
"There is always a RISK when a virus mutates to become less lethal, however. Just as an example, if a virus has a VERY high kill rate, especially if it does it quickly, then the spread of that virus may not be great. If though that virus mutates so that it doesn't kill at such a high rate, it DOES allow for many more people to get it, so over all that could lead to more deaths just due to sheer numbers of people who get it, even if the individual's chance of dying from it is now less."
Nothing I have said is wrong or shows a misunderstanding on any level.
Flagpole wrote:
agip wrote:
right, we're fighting over the definition of 'good.' as I predicted.
FP seems to be saying 'If one individual had to choose between the old covid and the new more contagious covid, then she should choose the new one.'
Everyone else on the planet is saying something different. We all understand that a more contagious covid strain means more cases and therefore more total deaths.
lame argument.
NOT a lame argument at all.
I even accounted for this earlier:
"There is always a RISK when a virus mutates to become less lethal, however. Just as an example, if a virus has a VERY high kill rate, especially if it does it quickly, then the spread of that virus may not be great. If though that virus mutates so that it doesn't kill at such a high rate, it DOES allow for many more people to get it, so over all that could lead to more deaths just due to sheer numbers of people who get it, even if the individual's chance of dying from it is now less."
Nothing I have said is wrong or shows a misunderstanding on any level.
Ok, FP, ok
the more people who get covid, the better.
more, more, more. We need everyone to get covid.
as long as it is the new more contagious strain.
we are in total 100% agreement, and you won this argument, hands down.
agip wrote:
and
FP: .viruses that mutate are "presumed likely" to be less deadly.
World: BREAKING: UK Prime Minister Johnson says there is some evidence a new Covid variant first identified in the country is more deadly
I also found an article (at Fat Hurts' request) that contained this bit:
Here is a quote from that article - “The general rule in virology is that better transmission is associated with milder illness,” says Ian Jones, a professor of virology at the University of Reading. “So even if transmission is higher the virus may be less dangerous.”
Sorry, but you stating that I would say I was right doesn't mean that I'm not. I ALWAYS admit when I am wrong about something, and I am NOT wrong about this.
What Fauci just said is exactly what he said to my wife and exactly what I was talking about earlier.