For storm:

We're down to 36 admitted, 8 in the ER, 9 in icu, 0-3 tubed across 5 campuses. I wish i had data on the number of vaccinated that have needed care. It appears that number is very low, but not sure it's zero.

2.7% of 3400 positive kids 0-17 have required admission, no deaths.

Mormad said:

---

packgrad said:

---

These are the numbers from a not benign disease according to the president of the AAP.

Hospitalizations (24 states and NYC reported)*

• Children were 1.2%-3.1% of total reported hospitalizations, and between 0.1%-1.9% of all child COVID-19 cases resulted in hospitalization

Mortality (43 states, NYC, PR and GU reported)*

• Children were 0.00%-0.21% of all COVID-19 deaths, and 9 states reported zero child deaths
• In states reporting, 0.00%-0.03% of all child COVID-19 cases resulted in death

---

Those are wonderful numbers! But by what rationale do they have to be completely acceptable? Why can't they be even lower, with even less risk to our children? 3.8 million infected. Why, if we have a reasonable mitigating factor that can lower that number even further and add to the non-medicinal mitigation and natural immunity to bring the actual real time risk to children even closer to absolute zero, would we not use it?

Davie keeps posting great thoughts and links about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines.

Mandate? No. Educate and encourage? Yes. EUA? Not sure i agree, but it'll probably be ok just as it has for those 16 and up. Probably a fair assumption that if it works safely in those 16-18, it'll likely be ok for those 12-15. NCSU made my 18yo get it. Not one single side effect. My 14 yo is signed up to get it Friday. I'll post updates. I suspect she'll be ok, and then at least her teachers won't have to worry about her.

Do i feel it IS truly essential for her to get it by the true definition on the word? Hell no. But if i tell her i think it's essential for her to get it, i think she understands it's my opinion that i think it's really important to me for her to get it. (She actually wants it, so there was no encouragement from mom and dad necessary)

---

They are wonderful numbers. As presented by the president of AAP, they are not benign. You don't get much more benign for a virus that is getting emergency authorization. 3.8 million infected is one of those irrelevant scoreboard numbers to me. I don't care that x many people were infected with the virus (don't care as it pertains to macro decisions made about the virus). I only care about those requiring hospitalization or died. If we're concerned about herd immunity, the scoreboard number helps, but nobody ever cares about them in that context.

Davie has posted great thoughts and links about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines. He's also posted great thoughts about how many children actually died from covid.

The vaccine for children is possibly a solution in search of a problem for young people. Kids get sick. It's part of growing up. We can accentuate the extremely unlikely negative outcomes of the virus for children but those can be accentuated with many other things and viruses much more dangerous. Its ok having an opinion about children not needing the vaccine for this virus, or even not needing it yet, but maybe later after we learn more. We don't have to agree.

We can't even agree on the word "essential" here. Or specific wording. Why would we expect everyone to agree that children and teenagers should get a vaccine for a virus that poses minimal risk to them?

One thing is for certain, in every context, it is not essential for children to be vaccinated.

https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2021/05/11/should-kids-be-vaccinated

Interesting viewpoints from different specialists with voicing of concerns, hesitations, and comforts.

Monica Ghandi admits her kids will get vaccinated. So there's that.

I know you introduced the argument yesterday that some are saying doses should go to India to vaccinate adults there before vaccinating children here in the U.S.

My question is, are there enough doses in the U.S. to attempt to address both? We are getting to that point where the rate of vaccination of adults here is plateauing and supply is greater than demand. I do not see, at this time, millions of parents advocating to vaccinate their 12-15 year olds, so would enough doses be available to address both situations? India is a very large population-dense country, so maybe there is not.

Lots of interesting info. 4 month test on 1100 recipients (that actually received the vaccine). Thought the comment about only around 100 of 16/17 were included in the earlier EUA was especially enlightening. Glad that Klein, I think it was, kind of made light of the 100% effective nonsense.

packgrad said:

---

Lots of interesting info. 4 month test on 1100 recipients (that actually received the vaccine). Thought the comment about only around 100 of 16/17 were included in the earlier EUA was especially enlightening. Glad that Klein, I think it was, kind of made light of the 100% effective nonsense.

---

Yeah, really good discussion with a lot a truthful comments, especially reading between some of the lines where they were being very careful what they said.

I do think that most sophisticated people understand there are no 100%s, especially in health management, but it's up to us to make sure the masses understand that. The way they measured efficacy has always been a little wonky to me, but the real world effectiveness seems to be confirming that they work. Plus, i have some faith in mRNA technology.

I also thought it was very interesting after yesterday's discussion that Monica Ghandi, who is considered an expert in infectious disease and speaks our conservative language and whom Davie gets some of his excellent info and thoughts, said she'll get her kid vaxxed. She says she'd prefer it go to India, but she'll get it here to help the herd. Hmmm, not so sure she's not just saying that to stay consistent.

I also think it's interesting that pravad is likely a liberal who views this pandemic thru conservative eyes, and I'm a conservative who I'm sure y'all feel views all this thru liberal eyes. I guess that's a good thing, some good give and take. Idk.

Wayland said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Vaccine lottery was genius.

---

I mean, with all the cash that has been thrown around lately. A drop in the bucket.

I was joking about a vaccine lottery with friends a few weeks ago. I am actually shocked that someone is doing it.

---

Absolutely a fantastic idea. I don't even know what we're spending now on various awareness campaigns. This is a tiny amount of money to get a lot of people to make the effort to go get their shot. People love lotteries to an irrational degree.

Mormad said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Lots of interesting info. 4 month test on 1100 recipients (that actually received the vaccine). Thought the comment about only around 100 of 16/17 were included in the earlier EUA was especially enlightening. Glad that Klein, I think it was, kind of made light of the 100% effective nonsense.

---

Yeah, really good discussion with a lot a truthful comments, especially reading between some of the lines where they were being very careful what they said.

I do think that most sophisticated people understand there are no 100%s, especially in health management, but it's up to us to make sure the masses understand that. The way they measured efficacy has always been a little wonky to me, but the real world effectiveness seems to be confirming that they work. Plus, i have some faith in mRNA technology.

I also thought it was very interesting after yesterday's discussion that Monica Ghandi, who is considered an expert in infectious disease and speaks our conservative language and whom Davie gets some of his excellent info and thoughts, said she'll get her kid vaxxed. She says she'd prefer it go to India, but she'll get it here to help the herd. Hmmm, not so sure she's not just saying that to stay consistent.

I also think it's interesting that pravad is likely a liberal who views this pandemic thru conservative eyes, and I'm a conservative who I'm sure y'all feel views all this thru liberal eyes. I guess that's a good thing, some good give and take. Idk.

---

Monica Gandhi is one of many doctors I follow on Twitter. She has mentioned several times that she is left, left leaning, but on Covid she has been more conservative and libertarian in her views. The thing I like about her is how she tries to base her recommendations on the science and data. She gets very frustrated with others in healthcare policy who do not follow this approach. I also like some of the information she provides on how the immune system works and it has proven to be a good jumping off point for me to do further self-education in this area.

There are other doctors I also follow on Twitter. Some tend to me more like Dr. Gandhi in their more open approach and some are more guarded with their approaches. I like to get different views of the same question, sine it helps me to check my own biases when forming my own opinions. I really try to avoid living in an echo chamber where I only get one view.

Dr. Pravad is one of the other doctors I follow on Twitter, along with Dr. Tracy Hoeg, Dr. Ashish Jha, Dr. Leana Wen, and Dr. Scott Gottlieb. There are others, but this makes up a core of who I follow regularly.

That's awesome, man. I really only follow Pravad and Ghandi and then just random emails or conversations. I really enjoy both P and G and their presentation of their views. They tend to speak my language, if you will.

IseWolf22 said:

---

Wayland said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Vaccine lottery was genius.

---

I mean, with all the cash that has been thrown around lately. A drop in the bucket.

I was joking about a vaccine lottery with friends a few weeks ago. I am actually shocked that someone is doing it.

---

Absolutely a fantastic idea. I don't even know what we're spending now on various awareness campaigns. This is a tiny amount of money to get a lot of people to make the effort to go get their shot. People love lotteries to an irrational degree.

---

It's precisely the type of unconventional and outside the box innovative thinking that frankly and sadly most of us have come not to expect from government.

I thought Dr. Walensky's (CDC Director) numbers sounded strange when I listened to a video of her testimony to the Senate earlier this week. I have already commented on the lies of Dr. Fauci during his testimony to the Senate earlier this week, but did not comment on hers. I had just looked at a study previous to her testimony, so I was surprised that she was stating outdoor transmission was <10%. The numbers I saw in the study I am referring to, put the chances of outdoor transmission at <1%.

Thankfully, someone went back and looked at the meta-analysis Dr. Walensky referred to in her testimony (she called it a meta-analysis in the video I watched) and revealed it is NOT a meta-analysis at all. It is a compilation of a set of studies with wide-ranging results. A compilation of a set of stories is not a meta-analysis. I have referred to meta-analysis in the past and am well aware of how they are constructed.

The article linked below, says she "misrepresented" the study, but I chose to say she lied. It is possible she misspoke in her testimony. After all, she is very busy and can not be expected to keep up with all of the latest studies, but when testifying before Congress, where reporters are present and publishing articles on what she says, she needs to be more careful when quoting from studies. At this point, she should issue a public correction to the media, but I am not holding my breath for her to do so.

You can read the entire article on this topic at the following link:

The CDC Director Misrepresented the Study She Cited To Justify Her Misleading Estimate of Outdoor COVID-19 Risk

JasonNCSU said:

---

Breaking. NBC News confirms: The CDC will announce that Americans who are fully vaccinated against COVID no longer need to wear masks or physically distance, indoors or outdoors in almost all circumstances. @MSNBC @NBCNews

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) May 13, 2021

---

"Science" finally starting to prevail.

JasonNCSU said:

---

Breaking. NBC News confirms: The CDC will announce that Americans who are fully vaccinated against COVID no longer need to wear masks or physically distance, indoors or outdoors in almost all circumstances. @MSNBC @NBCNews

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) May 13, 2021

---

Dangerous precedent to make separate rules for vaxxed vs not. What's next, the dictator governors following the CDC on this? And how do they enforce different rules for vaxxed and not? Require people to carry proof of vaccination on their person?

packgrad said:

---

JasonNCSU said:

---

Breaking. NBC News confirms: The CDC will announce that Americans who are fully vaccinated against COVID no longer need to wear masks or physically distance, indoors or outdoors in almost all circumstances. @MSNBC @NBCNews

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) May 13, 2021

---

"Science" finally starting to prevail.

---

Or public sentiment as to what a train wreck Walensky and the CDC are.

Saw this linked earlier today somewhere. When you lose CNN and Sanjay Gupta says you aren't following the science. What does the CDC even have anymore?

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2021/05/12/cnns-dr-gupta-science-is-not-necessarily-being-followed-by-cdc-were-probably-doing-things-that-we-dont-need-to/

So question about this mask removal for fully vaccinated people. Obviously kids under the age of 12 (I have two of them) can't be vaccinated. I'm guessing they're still required to wear masks indoors? Even though there's no possible way for them to become vaccinated? Seems a little harsh.

GuerrillaPack said:

---

JasonNCSU said:

---

Breaking. NBC News confirms: The CDC will announce that Americans who are fully vaccinated against COVID no longer need to wear masks or physically distance, indoors or outdoors in almost all circumstances. @MSNBC @NBCNews

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) May 13, 2021

---

Dangerous precedent to make separate rules for vaxxed vs not. What's next, the dictator governors following the CDC on this? And how do they enforce different rules for vaxxed and not? Require people to carry proof of vaccination on their person?

---

I don't see any way to enforce it without going full Hitler and randomly asking people for their papers.

Cthepack said:

---

GuerrillaPack said:

---

JasonNCSU said:

---

Breaking. NBC News confirms: The CDC will announce that Americans who are fully vaccinated against COVID no longer need to wear masks or physically distance, indoors or outdoors in almost all circumstances. @MSNBC @NBCNews

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) May 13, 2021

---

Dangerous precedent to make separate rules for vaxxed vs not. What's next, the dictator governors following the CDC on this? And how do they enforce different rules for vaxxed and not? Require people to carry proof of vaccination on their person?

---

We have all types of rules like this. You can not drive a car without a license.

---

Bad analogy. Requiring vaccination to be able to just live your life is unprecedented, and would be unconstitutional. Did we ever need a flu shot (or Hepatitis, etc) just to be able to go out in public or attend sporting events? Or if you weren't jabbed you had to wear masks?

These lockdowns are blatantly unconstitutional on many levels, including clear violations of the right to assembly under the First Amendment.

We have rights in this country. They cannot be limited or infringed upon, no matter what "emergency" is alleged as the excuse.

packgrad said:

---

JasonNCSU said:

---

Breaking. NBC News confirms: The CDC will announce that Americans who are fully vaccinated against COVID no longer need to wear masks or physically distance, indoors or outdoors in almost all circumstances. @MSNBC @NBCNews

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) May 13, 2021

---

"Science" finally starting to prevail.

---

We will see what Cooper and Cohen do with the indoor mask mandate. I would not be surprised it they keep it in place. I do expect many businesses to keep it in place, even if the mandates for indoors are lifted. Cooper was asked this week to increase the number of fans at the Carolina Hurricanes' playoff games at the PNC arena (current limit is 6,000 fans), but he has so far said no. As a comparison, the Nashville Predators are allowing 14,000 fans.

It has been interesting following the reaction of people on Twitter today to the Elf saying people who are vaccinated do not need to mask outdoors (it should apply to unvaccinated as well). The number of people who disagree with this statement is simply stunning. Many said they want the extra layer of safety and do not trust being around unvaccinated people. A few even said they did not want to be consider "Republicans" so they would continue to wear a mask to demonstrate they are not.

At this point, for many masks have become a performative talisman that signals the virtue of the wearer over others. I do recognize some people are legitimately afraid and it will take public health officials and the media to begin spreading the word that vaccines will protect you from serious Covid infection, hospitalizations, and death. However, I do not expect the media to do so, as long as they continue to try and generate fear for ratings and page reads.

My wife and I are friends with a couple who we have a yearly dinner with to celebrate our wedding anniversaries. We were both married in May, so we go out to a local restaurant as couples in May to celebrate (skipped it last year). They are a few years older than I am (mid-60's) and are legitimately frightened to go out to a restaurant. My wife and I have been eating in restaurants since they reopened after the initial lockdowns and before vaccination, we usually (99% of the time) ate outside. Since being vaccinated, we are now eating indoors and I usually remove my mask as soon as I am seated and only put it back on to walk through the restaurant when I am leaving. At this point, we have convinced them to eat outdoors at a restaurant, but they are still very hesitant. The psychological damage done to many in our population is stunning and it could take years for many to get over their fear.

DJncsu13 said:

---

So question about this mask removal for fully vaccinated people. Obviously kids under the age of 12 (I have two of them) can't be vaccinated. I'm guessing they're still required to wear masks indoors? Even though there's no possible way for them to become vaccinated? Seems a little harsh.

---

Yep. They are still required to mask up and we all are required to wear indoors until Gov. Cooper lifts his indoor mask mandate. His current executive orders do not allow it and the CDC is only issuing guidelines. They are not binding, so he and Cohen do not have to follow them.

Here is the new guidance:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/participate-in-activities.html

Pics not mine, so the red boxes were added by who I copied from.

That's a shame. The cult of the virus. It's sad that so many have been brainwashed to be so afraid, even after vaccination.

Well that's some nice news to hear on a Thursday afternoon. Not sure when hospital system, medical clinics might loosen mask requirements, so I will still have to wear one at work. It will be kind of nice not to have 3 in my truck to have anywhere else I go.

I know this should be obvious, but it bears repeating. There are very legitimate reasons for people to refuse vaccination. Many people, for example, are allergic to or otherwise know they can be harmed by vaccines. Other people have religious beliefs that prohibit them from taking vaccines.

People have the right to refuse vaccines. People have the right to decide what is injected into their own bodies. "My body my choice", right? People should be able to refuse them for ANY reason.

The CDC and government is now trying to classify people who choose not to be injected as akin to second-class citizens.

GuerrillaPack said:

---

I know this should be obvious, but it bears repeating. There are very legitimate reasons for people to refuse vaccination. Many people, for example, are allergic to or otherwise know they can be harmed by vaccines. Other people have religious beliefs that prohibit them from taking vaccines.

People have the right to refuse vaccines. People have the right to decide what is injected into their own bodies. "My body my choice", right? People should be able to refuse them for ANY reason.

The CDC and government is now trying to classify people who choose not to be injected as akin to second-class citizens.

---

This is true. I have a personal example. Our lady that works in our lab has religious reasons to refuse all vaccinations including the one for COVID-19. She understands her risks working in a medical clinic. She is required by our hospital system to wear a mask during flu season since she does not receive the influenza vaccine. She enjoys it, because it gives her an opportunity to discuss her faith when patients ask why she has to wear a mask.

Now, clearly, not every interaction will go that way. The majority of the individuals who do not want the vaccine (at least in my area and from what I hear from other providers in other areas) are not typically the ones who are masking anyways so they are not exactly following the mandates in the first place. Now, the ones who decline for health or religious reasons, that is a different ball game. Not sure how you address it without there being somewhat of a divide, honestly.