TheStorm said:

---

Kind of curious why we don't see anything in our local press about how all the "leftover" vaccines that were thawed out each day just get thrown away at the end of the day... our company got an email tip last Friday at 3:00PM that there were extra vaccines for "anybody" (regardless of age or health) that wanted them at a specific site 45+/- miles from Wilmington... while I wasn't in the position (timewise) to be able to take advantage of it personally, 2-3 of my co-workers made the drive and got their shots.

Just seems like these sites could be doing a better job notifying people instead of continually wasting vaccines at the end of every day...

Had a good friend of mine get tipped off by one of his clients that there were leftovers available for anybody at the Greensboro Coliseum late one day the week before last... but a power hungry "sign in clerk" turned them away (she claimed because they weren't 65) - wouldn't even check with whoever was in charge to ask either.

---

I can't speak for every county obviously, but in theory they shouldn't be thrown away. They should be given to anyone who can get there in time. One would hope that they had a plan for when that occurs.

My example is our county health department, which is not known for being the best. Our vaccine director will call her friends and extended family or people that hit her up on Facebook for extra shots with cancellations and such instead of going down the 55+ list that have been waiting for 4 weeks for a call. That to me is so frustrating, but may only be in our county.

TheStorm said:

---

Kind of curious why we don't see anything in our local press about how all the "leftover" vaccines that were thawed out each day just get thrown away at the end of the day... our company got an email tip last Friday at 3:00PM that there were extra vaccines for "anybody" (regardless of age or health) that wanted them at a specific site 45+/- miles from Wilmington... while I wasn't in the position (timewise) to be able to take advantage of it personally, 2-3 of my co-workers made the drive and got their shots.

Just seems like these sites could be doing a better job notifying people instead of continually wasting vaccines at the end of every day...

Had a good friend of mine get tipped off by one of his clients that there were leftovers available for anybody at the Greensboro Coliseum late one day the week before last... but a power hungry "sign in clerk" turned them away (she claimed because they weren't 65) - wouldn't even check with whoever was in charge to ask either.

---

Helpful Tip of the Day: If you want a vaccine, start calling your local Walgreens in the afternoon to see if they can add you into the list to get a vaccine that day. I know of two people who have done this in the past week. There are people making appointments to get vaccinated at Walgreens that do not show up. Toward the end of the day, Walgreens can end up with available doses and they need arms for them to go into. In these cases, it does not matter if it is not your turn, they will vaccinate you instead of throwing out the vaccine. I am actually considering doing this, since I have two Walgreens within 3 miles of my house.

Looks like we've hit > 2.5 MM vaccines for the first time, administered at the end of Feb. I'm sure days since then have hit that or surpassed but all the data isn't in yet.

Cases look like they may be leveling off a bit but hopefully continue in a downward slide

PackPA2015 said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

Kind of curious why we don't see anything in our local press about how all the "leftover" vaccines that were thawed out each day just get thrown away at the end of the day... our company got an email tip last Friday at 3:00PM that there were extra vaccines for "anybody" (regardless of age or health) that wanted them at a specific site 45+/- miles from Wilmington... while I wasn't in the position (timewise) to be able to take advantage of it personally, 2-3 of my co-workers made the drive and got their shots.

Just seems like these sites could be doing a better job notifying people instead of continually wasting vaccines at the end of every day...

Had a good friend of mine get tipped off by one of his clients that there were leftovers available for anybody at the Greensboro Coliseum late one day the week before last... but a power hungry "sign in clerk" turned them away (she claimed because they weren't 65) - wouldn't even check with whoever was in charge to ask either.

---

I can't speak for every county obviously, but in theory they shouldn't be thrown away. They should be given to anyone who can get there in time. One would hope that they had a plan for when that occurs.

My example is our county health department, which is not known for being the best. Our vaccine director will call her friends and extended family or people that hit her up on Facebook for extra shots with cancellations and such instead of going down the 55+ list that have been waiting for 4 weeks for a call. That to me is so frustrating, but may only be in our county.

---

Yep. That's basically my understanding of how it happens... instead of actually having a plan in place to get the word out to the public for equal access. Just seems like there would be a certain time every day that people should know that they should just show up at location "x" - and if there's an extra shot available after that timeline drawn in the sand that they can get it. Might not always have one available and you might have to go more than once before you can get one. But that would be better than wasting shots in my opinion.

But they definitely are getting thrown away. Every single day. Just seems like such a waste.

TheStorm said:

---

PackPA2015 said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

Kind of curious why we don't see anything in our local press about how all the "leftover" vaccines that were thawed out each day just get thrown away at the end of the day... our company got an email tip last Friday at 3:00PM that there were extra vaccines for "anybody" (regardless of age or health) that wanted them at a specific site 45+/- miles from Wilmington... while I wasn't in the position (timewise) to be able to take advantage of it personally, 2-3 of my co-workers made the drive and got their shots.

Just seems like these sites could be doing a better job notifying people instead of continually wasting vaccines at the end of every day...

Had a good friend of mine get tipped off by one of his clients that there were leftovers available for anybody at the Greensboro Coliseum late one day the week before last... but a power hungry "sign in clerk" turned them away (she claimed because they weren't 65) - wouldn't even check with whoever was in charge to ask either.

---

I can't speak for every county obviously, but in theory they shouldn't be thrown away. They should be given to anyone who can get there in time. One would hope that they had a plan for when that occurs.

My example is our county health department, which is not known for being the best. Our vaccine director will call her friends and extended family or people that hit her up on Facebook for extra shots with cancellations and such instead of going down the 55+ list that have been waiting for 4 weeks for a call. That to me is so frustrating, but may only be in our county.

---

Yep. That's basically my understanding of how it happens... instead of actually having a plan in place to get the word out to the public for equal access. Just seems like there would be a certain time every day that people should know that they should just show up at location "x" - and if there's an extra shot available after that timeline drawn in the sand that they can get it. Might not always have one available and you might have to go more than once before you can get one. But that would be better than wasting shots in my opinion.

But they definitely are getting thrown away. Every single day. Just seems like such a waste.

---

YES! 100% AGREE

Mormad said:

---

Honestly, i couldn't care less whether there's a mask mandate or not. Mask mandates are silly to me. Saying mask mandates don't work (which is very likely true) is not the same as saying masks don't work (which, when stated, is as maddening to me as the words fair share).

Saying masks don't work is, to me, like stating that a healthy diet, exercise, and avoidance of behaviors like smoking doesn't work because humans still die of heart disease and cancer.

I'm glad texas is leading the way. Somebody had to be the guinea pig. We'll find out if it works. But tweets about personal responsibility with lack of regard for (or an ignorance about ) community responsibility is something i won't cheer for. Let's not pretend that our society is one that isn't prone to childish/ selfish/ or ignorant behavior.

Mandates are stupid political pandering. Wearing a mask, for now, is logical, reasonable, responsible, tolerable (sort of), and defensible behavior imho.

---

To me, mandates are only stupid political pandering if the prevalence of mask wearing is the same with mandates and without.

If we believe that masks help some, even if hard to precisely quantify how much, wouldn't a mandate that increases mask wearing be truly beneficial and not political pandering?

Now, the huge presumption here that I have not looked for data on, is whether mask wearing increases in locations that have mandates relative to those that don't. I suspect it does but I have not looked for any data on it.

We may well be able to observe the inverse, to see if and how much mask wearing declines in locales that eliminate their mandate, as Texas and other states move forward.

One of the many challenging aspects of all this is that so many of these studies regarding mask efficacy require accurate self-reporting of mask wearing. Because there is a perceived social stigma against people going maskless, poll takers are inclined to over-report mask wearing.

All of this will be fascinating to deconstruct overtime when things calm down and when we are out of the pressure cooker of trying to eliminate a global pandemic.

Mormad said:

---

Honestly, i couldn't care less whether there's a mask mandate or not. Mask mandates are silly to me. Saying mask mandates don't work (which is very likely true) is not the same as saying masks don't work (which, when stated, is as maddening to me as the words fair share).

Saying masks don't work is, to me, like stating that a healthy diet, exercise, and avoidance of behaviors like smoking doesn't work because humans still die of heart disease and cancer.

---

If that was directed at me you can rest easy in that i meant mask mandates. End of the game or immediately after the game quick post without much concern for wording due to hype of a dominant win. Looking at it from an uneducated, unscientific approach, I can certainly see particles being restricted even with a cloth mask.

With that said, I do question how much benefit they've provided. I can certainly see how the cult like mask shaming in correlation with virus spread after mandates has caused damage and distrust that will do nothing but hamper compliance with future virus outbreaks.

I can certainly understand your point of view here, friend. I get it.

Interesting point, indeed. I will definitely keep looking into it, because it is important to decide do the mandates truly help or not. I think they do, but I am willing to look at the data impartially as possible and change my opinion if it says otherwise. I think even if you remove the CDC study that there are other studies that provide evidence to mask mandates working. But, it is really, really hard to study that other than observational.

ETA: if we know that masks are beneficial when most individuals wear them, do we get that amount of participation without a mandate? I think that is a difficult question to answer, but an important one. I do think the "being told what to do" factor is a big issue with participation. I will give you that. I also really agree that better education on being outdoors and other risk reductions measures would really improve case numbers.


To Packgrad, sorry if you meant mask mandates on your original post and not masking not working at all. That changes a large part of my argument. I hope we can all agree that masks work in decreasing transmission.

PackPA2015 said:

---

Interesting point, indeed. I will definitely keep looking into it, because it is important to decide do the mandates truly help or not. I think they do, but I am willing to look at the data impartially as possible and change my opinion if it says otherwise. I think even if you remove the CDC study that there are other studies that provide evidence to mask mandates working. But, it is really, really hard to study that other than observational.


To Packgrad, sorry if you meant mask mandates on your original post and not masking not working at all. That changes a large part of my argument. I hope we can all agree that masks work in decreasing transmission.

---

Thanks. I just want things that actually solve the problems and if they are not, we need to find out why not.

The absolutism of public health officials and politicians standing at the podium and declaring "We KNOW what works!", is just insanity to me. We obviously don't know because policies and outcomes are all over the place. So these officials need to step off the pulpit and stop with the sermons.

Maybe in the heat of the moment given the current political climate and ongoing crisis, it was too much to ask to have these reasoned debates and conversations. The attempts to quash any questions of public health policy over the last year have been disgusting.

But as this wanes, all these officials and 'experts' need to take a hard look in the mirror and start to ask the questions that if we knew what worked, why didn't it? And how can policy in a crisis not be so myopic in nature and consider broader consequences.

I won't even go into how the media has basically monetized their ability to create division and panic, that is another story

Mormad said:

---

I think you hit the nail on the head. I do think the presumtion you mention is the kicker for me. I think mask mandates, as evidenced by this thread, have adverse effects on human behavior as people rile against measures they feel are oppressive in some way. At least i know that's how I'm personally affected. People don't wanna be told what to do, especially in situations with controversial or poorly understood effectual outcomes. Masks aren't the enemy, mask mandates are? That's what it seems?

---

Haha! So true brother.

My kids don't like being told what to do but most adults aren't any different.

Hell it's probably worse with adults. Kids are used to being oppressed.

Wayland said:

---

PackPA2015 said:

---

Interesting point, indeed. I will definitely keep looking into it, because it is important to decide do the mandates truly help or not. I think they do, but I am willing to look at the data impartially as possible and change my opinion if it says otherwise. I think even if you remove the CDC study that there are other studies that provide evidence to mask mandates working. But, it is really, really hard to study that other than observational.


To Packgrad, sorry if you meant mask mandates on your original post and not masking not working at all. That changes a large part of my argument. I hope we can all agree that masks work in decreasing transmission.

---

Thanks. I just want things that actually solve the problems and if they are not, we need to find out why not.

The absolutism of public health officials and politicians standing at the podium and declaring "We KNOW what works!", is just insanity to me. We obviously don't know because policies and outcomes are all over the place. So these officials need to step off the pulpit and stop with the sermons.

Maybe in the heat of the moment given the current political climate and ongoing crisis, it was too much to ask to have these reasoned debates and conversations. The attempts to quash any questions of public health policy over the last year have been disgusting.

But as this wanes, all these officials and 'experts' need to take a hard look in the mirror and start to ask the questions that if we knew what worked, why didn't it? And how can policy in a crisis not be so myopic in nature and consider broader consequences.

I won't even go into how the media has basically monetized their ability to create division and panic, that is another story

---

I'm not defending it but absolutism is part and parcel with trying to engage and shape behaviors of mass quantities of people.

Mealy-mouthed, uncertain messaging is going to fail 10/10 times.

Seeming certain in the face of uncertainty is the plight of every leader, everywhere, during any major challenge.

Completely agree both that we need to deconstruct, assess, and improve how we handled this so we're more ready for the next one, and that the media responds to sometimes perverse incentives.

Agreed on all of that.

bigeric said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Mormad said:

---

...

---

...
Hell it's probably worse with adults. Kids are used to being oppressed.

---

Aw, Jeez. Just what we need, another another oppressed minority that has to have its condition improved.

---

Hahahahahaha

Wayland said:

---

PackPA2015 said:

---

Interesting point, indeed. I will definitely keep looking into it, because it is important to decide do the mandates truly help or not. I think they do, but I am willing to look at the data impartially as possible and change my opinion if it says otherwise. I think even if you remove the CDC study that there are other studies that provide evidence to mask mandates working. But, it is really, really hard to study that other than observational.


To Packgrad, sorry if you meant mask mandates on your original post and not masking not working at all. That changes a large part of my argument. I hope we can all agree that masks work in decreasing transmission.

---

Thanks. I just want things that actually solve the problems and if they are not, we need to find out why not.

The absolutism of public health officials and politicians standing at the podium and declaring "We KNOW what works!", is just insanity to me. We obviously don't know because policies and outcomes are all over the place. So these officials need to step off the pulpit and stop with the sermons.

Maybe in the heat of the moment given the current political climate and ongoing crisis, it was too much to ask to have these reasoned debates and conversations. The attempts to quash any questions of public health policy over the last year have been disgusting.

But as this wanes, all these officials and 'experts' need to take a hard look in the mirror and start to ask the questions that if we knew what worked, why didn't it? And how can policy in a crisis not be so myopic in nature and consider broader consequences.

I won't even go into how the media has basically monetized their ability to create division and panic, that is another story

---

I used to think i couldn't be disgusted by anything as much as politicians/politics, but i think the slobbering media has become more disturbing. It's getting as bad as the social media posts of the constantly offended. The anger has to be bad for my health. I can't watch anymore. Not without more bourbon anyway.

To Wayland et al. that were discussing mask mandates and their efficacy, this is the best collection of studies that I can find with quick summaries of each. This is from the Infectious Disease Society of America.

They, again, reference the study performed by Wei Lyu and George Wehby looking at state mandates directly. This is really the only study I can find that looks at a large collection of data and categorizes it state-by-state. Their conclusion can be summarized as, "There was a significant decline in daily COVID-19 growth rate after the mandating of face covers in public, with the effect increasing over time after the orders were signed."

Collection of Articles

Looking at State Mask Mandates

Mormad said:

---

Yep. Most of my friends are ready for reopening with masking and common sense. Most of us, at least the more conservative ones, never wanted shut downs to the degree it happened, and always hated the economic effect it had on our business and the businesses of our friends around here. We always fought for masking, reasonable social distancing, and hand washing to mitigate risk, with as little effect on the business of our community as humanly possible. We absolutely fight for no harm no matter what, but never with disregard to all aspects of our lives including socialization and economic well being. I wish medical folks had more say so. This is my take based on locker room talk anyway.

---

Totally agree. The medical community around me locally would tend to say the same as well.

wilmwolf80 said:

---

To be honest, I don't care to read any of the articles or studies. I don't see how you can eliminate enough variables to say definitively that the mandate is what changed numbers. Most mask mandates I know of coincided with other measures, capacity, travel, school etc. It was also during a period of time when a large number of people shifted to working from home. You also had a large number of people masking on their own. Is there correlation there between mandates and lowering numbers? I guess. There's just a lot of variables there. There are also plenty of spikes that happened post mask mandates too. Mask mandates also don't cover the most likely transmission scenarios, which is mostly sitting in your home with someone who is sick. You'll never convince me that a bunch of people were saved from getting the virus walking down the grocery store aisle because they were wearing masks, because the science says the risk of getting the virus by just walking past someone is extremely unlikely. I'm with Wayland, I'm against dealing in absolutes in scenarios with so many unknowns and variables.

---

But that's the point of the study to try to address that question, if you remove this variable or this one and still have this variable present, what happens?

So if we do open businesses 100% and we get away from social distancing and we go back to school, what happens if we leave the mask mandates as is? What happens if we repeal the mask mandates? I do not want to be a part of the real life study of removing everything and seeing what happens, but that's just me. 2020 was horrific enough as is.

wilmwolf80 said:

---

To be honest, I don't care to read any of the articles or studies. I don't see how you can eliminate enough variables to say definitively that the mandate is what changed numbers. Most mask mandates I know of coincided with other measures, capacity, travel, school etc. It was also during a period of time when a large number of people shifted to working from home. You also had a large number of people masking on their own. Is there correlation there between mandates and lowering numbers? I guess. There's just a lot of variables there. There are also plenty of spikes that happened post mask mandates too. Mask mandates also don't cover the most likely transmission scenarios, which is mostly sitting in your home with someone who is sick. You'll never convince me that a bunch of people were saved from getting the virus walking down the grocery store aisle because they were wearing masks, because the science says the risk of getting the virus by just walking past someone is extremely unlikely. I'm with Wayland, I'm against dealing in absolutes in scenarios with so many unknowns and variables.

---

Well said. And, honestly, if there's one thing I've learned through this pandemic is that there are certainly no absolutes lol. We learning on da fly, bruh!

PackPA2015 said:

---

wilmwolf80 said:

---

To be honest, I don't care to read any of the articles or studies. I don't see how you can eliminate enough variables to say definitively that the mandate is what changed numbers. Most mask mandates I know of coincided with other measures, capacity, travel, school etc. It was also during a period of time when a large number of people shifted to working from home. You also had a large number of people masking on their own. Is there correlation there between mandates and lowering numbers? I guess. There's just a lot of variables there. There are also plenty of spikes that happened post mask mandates too. Mask mandates also don't cover the most likely transmission scenarios, which is mostly sitting in your home with someone who is sick. You'll never convince me that a bunch of people were saved from getting the virus walking down the grocery store aisle because they were wearing masks, because the science says the risk of getting the virus by just walking past someone is extremely unlikely. I'm with Wayland, I'm against dealing in absolutes in scenarios with so many unknowns and variables.

---

But that's the point of the study to try to address that question, if you remove this variable or this one and still have this variable present, what happens?

So if we do open businesses 100% and we get away from social distancing and we go back to school, what happens if we leave the mask mandates as is? What happens if we repeal the mask mandates? I do not want to be a part of the real life study of removing everything and seeing what happens, but that's just me. 2020 was horrific enough as is.

---

Because the mandates are not necessary. Businesses can still require it if they so desire. You currently have 40 some states sharing your uniformity of thought so far with the handling of the virus. Why are you opposed to Texas making the decision for themselves?

PackPA2015 said:

---

wilmwolf80 said:

---

To be honest, I don't care to read any of the articles or studies. I don't see how you can eliminate enough variables to say definitively that the mandate is what changed numbers. Most mask mandates I know of coincided with other measures, capacity, travel, school etc. It was also during a period of time when a large number of people shifted to working from home. You also had a large number of people masking on their own. Is there correlation there between mandates and lowering numbers? I guess. There's just a lot of variables there. There are also plenty of spikes that happened post mask mandates too. Mask mandates also don't cover the most likely transmission scenarios, which is mostly sitting in your home with someone who is sick. You'll never convince me that a bunch of people were saved from getting the virus walking down the grocery store aisle because they were wearing masks, because the science says the risk of getting the virus by just walking past someone is extremely unlikely. I'm with Wayland, I'm against dealing in absolutes in scenarios with so many unknowns and variables.

---

But that's the point of the study to try to address that question, if you remove this variable or this one and still have this variable present, what happens?

So if we do open businesses 100% and we get away from social distancing and we go back to school, what happens if we leave the mask mandates as is? What happens if we repeal the mask mandates? I do not want to be a part of the real life study of removing everything and seeing what happens, but that's just me. 2020 was horrific enough as is.

---

You're absolutely correct that the studies try to control for variables, but it's tough to do. You and I understand the concerns these guys have i think. The encouraging thing to me is that even the guys that oppose the mandates are doing their part and wearing their masks appropriately based on their comments. If that's true of our society as a whole, then i think we're still moving quickly towards winning this war and getting our ever loving lives back.

For the US and NC, here are the current vaccination numbers:

US Vaccinations:
Total Vaccination Doses Available: 109,950,530
Total Vaccination Dose Administered: 82,572,848 <== 16.3% of population have received 1st dose
Percentage of Available Doses Administered: 75.1%

NC Vaccinations:
Total Vaccination Doses Available: 3,302,138
Total Vaccination Dose Administered: 2,661,523 <== 16.3% of population have received 1st dose
Percentage of Available Doses Administered: 80.6%


In other news:

1. To expand upon my earlier comments regarding the reporting of cases and deaths by the CDC, Biden administration officials, and local news media, please realize that "reported" cases and "reported" deaths are not equal to "cases by date" and "deaths by date" when you are trying to show trends. As I mentioned, the CDC director and the CDC in general were guilty yesterday in both stating in a briefing and in a Tweet that cases are increasing nationally. In fact, they were using "reported" data and if they had used cases by "date of specimen" they would have not been able to report this. They need to do better, since they are sending out a very inaccurate message to the American people.

2. Related to my first point, today NCDHHS reported 2,502 new Covid-19 cases from yesterday's report. They also reported 36 new deaths from yesterday's report. If you do a quick analysis, you will find that 428 of the new cases were from specimens taken last week or earlier. With regards to deaths, 27 of the new deaths were from deaths that occurred last week or earlier. In actuality, cases, deaths, and hospitalizations are continuing their rapid decrease.

3. I would urge everyone to focus more on hospitalization numbers, percent positive tests, and deaths by date of death, instead of cases. Cases will likely continue well into the coming months and as such, are not a good method to track vaccine effectiveness. Since the immediate focus has been on vaccinating the population that has most contribute to hospitalizations and deaths (those aged 65+), looking at these two statistics will be a much better gauge of vaccine effectiveness.

With regards to percent positive tests, I would call your attention to the attached graph. It shows some really astounding news - we are now showing percent positive tests below 5%. This was one of the key thresholds the governor and NCDHHS set for ending a lot of the "lock-down" policies. Hopefully, this percentage will continue to fall.

4. As it relates to the recent discussions regarding Texas and Mississippi, I did some checking and found that Texas and Mississippi are not the first states to end statewide mask mandates. There are now 15 states that have no statewide mandate to wear a mask. So, I guess Texas and Mississippi are not the only states with "Neanderthal thinking."

Texas' guidelines also stipulate that if Covid-19 hospitalizations in any of Texas' 22 hospital regions rise above 15% of the capacity in the region for seven straight days, a county judge may use Covid mitigation strategies in their county. Apparently, county judges in Texas have had the power to implement Covid restrictions on businesses in local communities, regardless of statewide guidelines. Reportedly, Gov. Abbott's ruling yesterday eliminate a loophole some judges were using to enforce local guidelines.


Daily Percent Positive Tests (Data Source: NCDHHS):




US Vaccination Tracking (Data Source: Bloomberg Vaccination Tracker):




NC Vaccination Tracking (Data Source: Bloomberg Vaccination Tracker):

New CLI out. Looks like the last week of February was one of the best weeks for hospitalizations since June (basically around Sept numbers).



https://files.nc.gov/covid/documents/dashboard/Weekly-COVID19-Surveillance.pdf

FWIW, I don't oppose mask mandates. I'm just opposed to saying definitively at this point that they had a drastic effect on the course of the virus over the many other measures and factors.