caryking said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wayland said:

---

Basically, 'who' should be brought in is outside my purview

The short answer on who needs to go is 'EVERYBODY'. Is it practical... no. But it needs to be done.

But Fauci and Walensky (and basically whoever puts out the sham CDC cherry picked 'studies) should both be gone like yesterday. Or at least removed from public facing roles and gagged. It goes much broader than that, but that would be a start.

EDIT: Just to add. I get Fauci seemed like a dose of juxtaposed sanity when it came to the early pandemic and Trump. But if you really can not see him for the "me first" narcissistic bureaucrat (who it is not outside the realm of possibility had at least a small degree of fault for the pandemic), who's own self-interests MAY occasionally intersect with public health... BUT is likely to cause more harm than good.... I recommend you take a good hard look in the mirror and re-evaluate your entire world view.

Fauci is not a 'good actor'.

-Walensky is just a hysterical politicized MUPPET and if she at one point had any credibility, it is long gone.

To that CDC end, the CDC MMWR propaganda arm should be disbanded.... or at least reformed and include somebody who has greater than a high school level of statistics or data analysis. Additionally, all their cherry picked to fit a narrative, anecdotal studies should be subject to serious peer-review prior to being made public. The fact that the CDC has decided to eschew actual science and data in order to bow to whatever political winds happen to be blowing is a disservice to us all. It is great that they have a solid team infographic creators, but we don't need cute tweets right now.... we need ACTUAL science (not the narrative 'the science').

---

Perhaps you got the bold statement reversed... Remember, Trump brought in Scott Atlas as a new advisor. Probably because he didn't trust Fauci any longer. I've said this before: Trump was spot on with his assessment of the virus.

Yes, I understand he said we would beat this thing early on; however, he stood there daily and took questions and a beating, by the media. What's Biden done?

Trump is the epitome of an optimist! That's the way he operates. He wants people to feel as if everything is going to be ok. Nothing wrong with that as a leader. At the same time, he stood their and took question after question.

Finally, this juxtapose crap is a joke! Somebody needed to juxtapose Fauci! Fauci is EVIL!!!

---

LOL. Come on man. It's ok to say Trump completely whiffed (and mislead) the American people on how bad this was. Lots of folks did early on.

This is like saying -- "I've said this before, but Edward Smith, was spot on with his assessment of the unsinkability of the Titanic".
"Yes, I know he ran it into an iceberg and sunk the unsinkable costing thousands of people who trusted him their lives but it was only because he was an optimist".

---

Chem, I wasn't talking to you. We all know how you feel about Trump! Please STOP!!!

---

LOL, you just said he was spot on in his assessment about Covid on a public forum. If you wanted it to be a response to a single person, send them a message. You see, I tend to mock it whenever someone says something really stupid, whether its about Trump or Biden or whomever. And that comment, was pretty stupid.
Did you hear that one in one of your beloved "Trump was always right (and if he wasn't it was only because he was lied to)" video sessions?

ETA: OK, now back to ongoing Corona stories....

---

Chem, it's obvious that you're butt hurt by people like me! Why you continue to respond to me shows this. BTW, you're the only STUPID one here!

It's time for you to get lost!!!!

BTW, I still have the private messages you've sent me!

---

WPNfamily said:

---

If I have learned one thing from Covid it is that more people than ever have rooted their own personal identities in their political affiliation... This is why we can not have nice things and have to suffer through so much misinformation.

---

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wayland said:

---

Basically, 'who' should be brought in is outside my purview

The short answer on who needs to go is 'EVERYBODY'. Is it practical... no. But it needs to be done.

But Fauci and Walensky (and basically whoever puts out the sham CDC cherry picked 'studies) should both be gone like yesterday. Or at least removed from public facing roles and gagged. It goes much broader than that, but that would be a start.

EDIT: Just to add. I get Fauci seemed like a dose of juxtaposed sanity when it came to the early pandemic and Trump. But if you really can not see him for the "me first" narcissistic bureaucrat (who it is not outside the realm of possibility had at least a small degree of fault for the pandemic), who's own self-interests MAY occasionally intersect with public health... BUT is likely to cause more harm than good.... I recommend you take a good hard look in the mirror and re-evaluate your entire world view.

Fauci is not a 'good actor'.

-Walensky is just a hysterical politicized MUPPET and if she at one point had any credibility, it is long gone.

To that CDC end, the CDC MMWR propaganda arm should be disbanded.... or at least reformed and include somebody who has greater than a high school level of statistics or data analysis. Additionally, all their cherry picked to fit a narrative, anecdotal studies should be subject to serious peer-review prior to being made public. The fact that the CDC has decided to eschew actual science and data in order to bow to whatever political winds happen to be blowing is a disservice to us all. It is great that they have a solid team infographic creators, but we don't need cute tweets right now.... we need ACTUAL science (not the narrative 'the science').

---

Perhaps you got the bold statement reversed... Remember, Trump brought in Scott Atlas as a new advisor. Probably because he didn't trust Fauci any longer. I've said this before: Trump was spot on with his assessment of the virus.

Yes, I understand he said we would beat this thing early on; however, he stood there daily and took questions and a beating, by the media. What's Biden done?

Trump is the epitome of an optimist! That's the way he operates. He wants people to feel as if everything is going to be ok. Nothing wrong with that as a leader. At the same time, he stood their and took question after question.

Finally, this juxtapose crap is a joke! Somebody needed to juxtapose Fauci! Fauci is EVIL!!!

---

LOL. Come on man. It's ok to say Trump completely whiffed (and mislead) the American people on how bad this was. Lots of folks did early on.

This is like saying -- "I've said this before, but Edward Smith, was spot on with his assessment of the unsinkability of the Titanic".
"Yes, I know he ran it into an iceberg and sunk the unsinkable costing thousands of people who trusted him their lives but it was only because he was an optimist".

---

Chem, I wasn't talking to you. We all know how you feel about Trump! Please STOP!!!

---

LOL, you just said he was spot on in his assessment about Covid on a public forum. If you wanted it to be a response to a single person, send them a message. You see, I tend to mock it whenever someone says something really stupid, whether its about Trump or Biden or whomever. And that comment, was pretty stupid.
Did you hear that one in one of your beloved "Trump was always right (and if he wasn't it was only because he was lied to)" video sessions?

ETA: OK, now back to ongoing Corona stories....

---

Chem, it's obvious that you're butt hurt by people like me! Why you continue to respond to me shows this. BTW, you're the only STUPID one here!

It's time for you to get lost!!!!

BTW, I still have the private messages you've sent me!

---

LOL, ok. I'm not sure what that even means -- the PM thread you started and that was cordial - where you sent me your thoughts, I replied in kind, and you replied one last time?
Wow. Post it all here, as far as I'm concerned.
You make it seem like something was untoward, it was reasonable both directions.

Why have you started acting like such a spoiled child on here? You made a dumb comment. Everyone does occasionally, so no, I won't "get lost".

---

caryking said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wayland said:

---

Basically, 'who' should be brought in is outside my purview

The short answer on who needs to go is 'EVERYBODY'. Is it practical... no. But it needs to be done.

But Fauci and Walensky (and basically whoever puts out the sham CDC cherry picked 'studies) should both be gone like yesterday. Or at least removed from public facing roles and gagged. It goes much broader than that, but that would be a start.

EDIT: Just to add. I get Fauci seemed like a dose of juxtaposed sanity when it came to the early pandemic and Trump. But if you really can not see him for the "me first" narcissistic bureaucrat (who it is not outside the realm of possibility had at least a small degree of fault for the pandemic), who's own self-interests MAY occasionally intersect with public health... BUT is likely to cause more harm than good.... I recommend you take a good hard look in the mirror and re-evaluate your entire world view.

Fauci is not a 'good actor'.

-Walensky is just a hysterical politicized MUPPET and if she at one point had any credibility, it is long gone.

To that CDC end, the CDC MMWR propaganda arm should be disbanded.... or at least reformed and include somebody who has greater than a high school level of statistics or data analysis. Additionally, all their cherry picked to fit a narrative, anecdotal studies should be subject to serious peer-review prior to being made public. The fact that the CDC has decided to eschew actual science and data in order to bow to whatever political winds happen to be blowing is a disservice to us all. It is great that they have a solid team infographic creators, but we don't need cute tweets right now.... we need ACTUAL science (not the narrative 'the science').

---

Perhaps you got the bold statement reversed... Remember, Trump brought in Scott Atlas as a new advisor. Probably because he didn't trust Fauci any longer. I've said this before: Trump was spot on with his assessment of the virus.

Yes, I understand he said we would beat this thing early on; however, he stood there daily and took questions and a beating, by the media. What's Biden done?

Trump is the epitome of an optimist! That's the way he operates. He wants people to feel as if everything is going to be ok. Nothing wrong with that as a leader. At the same time, he stood their and took question after question.

Finally, this juxtapose crap is a joke! Somebody needed to juxtapose Fauci! Fauci is EVIL!!!

---

LOL. Come on man. It's ok to say Trump completely whiffed (and mislead) the American people on how bad this was. Lots of folks did early on.

This is like saying -- "I've said this before, but Edward Smith, was spot on with his assessment of the unsinkability of the Titanic".
"Yes, I know he ran it into an iceberg and sunk the unsinkable costing thousands of people who trusted him their lives but it was only because he was an optimist".

---

Chem, I wasn't talking to you. We all know how you feel about Trump! Please STOP!!!

---

LOL, you just said he was spot on in his assessment about Covid on a public forum. If you wanted it to be a response to a single person, send them a message. You see, I tend to mock it whenever someone says something really stupid, whether its about Trump or Biden or whomever. And that comment, was pretty stupid.
Did you hear that one in one of your beloved "Trump was always right (and if he wasn't it was only because he was lied to)" video sessions?

ETA: OK, now back to ongoing Corona stories....

---

Chem, it's obvious that you're butt hurt by people like me! Why you continue to respond to me shows this. BTW, you're the only STUPID one here!

It's time for you to get lost!!!!

BTW, I still have the private messages you've sent me!

---

LOL, ok. I'm not sure what that even means -- the PM thread you started and that was cordial - where you sent me your thoughts, I replied in kind, and you replied one last time?
Wow. Post it all here, as far as I'm concerned.
You make it seem like something was untoward, it was reasonable both directions.

Why have you started acting like such a spoiled child on here? You made a dumb comment. Everyone does occasionally, so no, I won't "get lost".

---

Ok

---

ciscopack said:

---

I assume you guys heard about that plane crash a few weeks ago where 2 guys survived the crash and they struggled to find their way out for days? It was in some jungle; I forget where? Neither had Covid and one guy was vaccinated; he was an engineer and architect. They were walking through the jungle and came upon a dilapidated bridge about 300 feet long and below was a river full of crocodiles. The un-vaccinated guy asked the engineer, what chances do we have to cross on that bridge? The engineer looked at it carefully and said that he's estimate the chances of the bridge holding them up to be around 90%. The un-vaccinated guy said the hell with that, I'm going to swim across. 1 made it home and 1 did not.

---

PackPA2015 said:

---

Even after 50+% of the US has been fully vaccinated, mortality rate for COVID is currently 1.6%. Yearly estimated flu mortality is 0.1%. That would be 16 times more deadly. This ain't the flu brother.

---

Wayland said:

---

PackPA2015 said:

---

Even after 50+% of the US has been fully vaccinated, mortality rate for COVID is currently 1.6%. Yearly estimated flu mortality is 0.1%. That would be 16 times more deadly. This ain't the flu brother.

---

Not to pick. But I believe you are comparing a U.S.CFR (660k/40mil for the ENTIRE pandemic) of COVID to an estimated U.S. IFR of influenza there.

While certainly the population IFR for C19 is higher than that of flu, you comparison appears to be apples to oranges. Those numbers are also subject to severe age stratification.

Flu, RSV etc remain with higher IFR for children than C19.

Then again C19 is orders of magnitude worse at the upper age range.

In NC the CFR of the flu the 20/21 winter/spring flu season was 7/43 or 16%.

In NC the CFR of COVID so far has been 14.7k/1.2 million or 1.2%.

See how careful we need to be with numbers? Even when we are using the same basis for calculating CFR... deaths/cases identified (instead of deaths/estimated infections).

Your point remains. But be aware of the numbers your are throwing around and that when you are talking 'mortality rate' you conflate IFR and CFR in your comparisons.

---

Quote:

---

A case fatality rate (CFR) is the proportion of deaths from a disease compared to the total number of people diagnosed.

An infection fatality rate (IFR) is the proportion of deaths among all infected individuals, in other words the true fatality rate. While related to the CFR, an IFR attempts to estimate the mortality rate including non-diagnosed cases (e.g. not tested, asymptomatic). An IFR should be lower than the CFR, since the denominator would be expected to be larger.

---

Daviewolf83 said:

---

Wayland said:

---

PackPA2015 said:

---

Even after 50+% of the US has been fully vaccinated, mortality rate for COVID is currently 1.6%. Yearly estimated flu mortality is 0.1%. That would be 16 times more deadly. This ain't the flu brother.

---

Not to pick. But I believe you are comparing a U.S.CFR (660k/40mil for the ENTIRE pandemic) of COVID to an estimated U.S. IFR of influenza there.

While certainly the population IFR for C19 is higher than that of flu, you comparison appears to be apples to oranges. Those numbers are also subject to severe age stratification.

Flu, RSV etc remain with higher IFR for children than C19.

Then again C19 is orders of magnitude worse at the upper age range.

In NC the CFR of the flu the 20/21 winter/spring flu season was 7/43 or 16%.

In NC the CFR of COVID so far has been 14.7k/1.2 million or 1.2%.

See how careful we need to be with numbers? Even when we are using the same basis for calculating CFR... deaths/cases identified (instead of deaths/estimated infections).

Your point remains. But be aware of the numbers your are throwing around and that when you are talking 'mortality rate' you conflate IFR and CFR in your comparisons.

---

Below is are my calculated CFR values for Covid-19, using known case and death statistics for North Carolina. The following values show the age variance as it relates to mortality and it is quite striking.

0-17 = 0.00%
18-24 = 0.00%
25-49 = 0.15%
50-64 = 1.00%
65-74 = 3.57%
75+ = 11.09%

Overall CFR = 1.19%

Of course, IFR is more difficult to calculate, since we do not know the number of actual Covid infections. I have seen estimates that 15-20% of the overall population in the US has been infected with Covid and if you assume the lower end of the scale (15%) for North Carolina, the IFRs by age group are as follows:

0-17 = 0.00%
18-24 = 0.00%
25-49 = 0.12% (0.09% assuming 20% infection rate)
50-64 = 0.79% (0.60% assuming 20% infection rate)
65-74 = 2.83% (2.12% assuming 20% infection rate)
75+ = 8.80% (6.60% assuming 20% infection rate)

Overall IFR = 0.94% (0.71% assuming 20% of population has been infected)

---

Daviewolf83 said:

---

Wayland said:

---

PackPA2015 said:

---

Even after 50+% of the US has been fully vaccinated, mortality rate for COVID is currently 1.6%. Yearly estimated flu mortality is 0.1%. That would be 16 times more deadly. This ain't the flu brother.

---

Not to pick. But I believe you are comparing a U.S.CFR (660k/40mil for the ENTIRE pandemic) of COVID to an estimated U.S. IFR of influenza there.

While certainly the population IFR for C19 is higher than that of flu, you comparison appears to be apples to oranges. Those numbers are also subject to severe age stratification.

Flu, RSV etc remain with higher IFR for children than C19.

Then again C19 is orders of magnitude worse at the upper age range.

In NC the CFR of the flu the 20/21 winter/spring flu season was 7/43 or 16%.

In NC the CFR of COVID so far has been 14.7k/1.2 million or 1.2%.

See how careful we need to be with numbers? Even when we are using the same basis for calculating CFR... deaths/cases identified (instead of deaths/estimated infections).

Your point remains. But be aware of the numbers your are throwing around and that when you are talking 'mortality rate' you conflate IFR and CFR in your comparisons.

---

Below is are my calculated CFR values for Covid-19, using known case and death statistics for North Carolina. The following values show the age stratification as it relates to mortality and it is quite striking.

0-17 = 0.00%
18-24 = 0.00%
25-49 = 0.15%
50-64 = 1.00%
65-74 = 3.57%
75+ = 11.09%

Overall CFR = 1.19%

Of course, IFR is more difficult to calculate, since we do not know the number of actual Covid infections. I have seen estimates that 15-20% of the overall population in the US has been infected with Covid and if you assume the lower end of the scale (15%) for North Carolina, the IFRs by age group are as follows:

0-17 = 0.00%
18-24 = 0.00%
25-49 = 0.12% (0.09% assuming 20% infection rate)
50-64 = 0.79% (0.60% assuming 20% infection rate)
65-74 = 2.83% (2.12% assuming 20% infection rate)
75+ = 8.80% (6.60% assuming 20% infection rate)

Overall IFR = 0.94% (0.71% assuming 20% of population has been infected)

---

Wayland said:

---

Daviewolf83 said:

---

Wayland said:

---

PackPA2015 said:

---

Even after 50+% of the US has been fully vaccinated, mortality rate for COVID is currently 1.6%. Yearly estimated flu mortality is 0.1%. That would be 16 times more deadly. This ain't the flu brother.

---

Not to pick. But I believe you are comparing a U.S.CFR (660k/40mil for the ENTIRE pandemic) of COVID to an estimated U.S. IFR of influenza there.

While certainly the population IFR for C19 is higher than that of flu, you comparison appears to be apples to oranges. Those numbers are also subject to severe age stratification.

Flu, RSV etc remain with higher IFR for children than C19.

Then again C19 is orders of magnitude worse at the upper age range.

In NC the CFR of the flu the 20/21 winter/spring flu season was 7/43 or 16%.

In NC the CFR of COVID so far has been 14.7k/1.2 million or 1.2%.

See how careful we need to be with numbers? Even when we are using the same basis for calculating CFR... deaths/cases identified (instead of deaths/estimated infections).

Your point remains. But be aware of the numbers your are throwing around and that when you are talking 'mortality rate' you conflate IFR and CFR in your comparisons.

---

Below is are my calculated CFR values for Covid-19, using known case and death statistics for North Carolina. The following values show the age stratification as it relates to mortality and it is quite striking.

0-17 = 0.00%
18-24 = 0.00%
25-49 = 0.15%
50-64 = 1.00%
65-74 = 3.57%
75+ = 11.09%

Overall CFR = 1.19%

Of course, IFR is more difficult to calculate, since we do not know the number of actual Covid infections. I have seen estimates that 15-20% of the overall population in the US has been infected with Covid and if you assume the lower end of the scale (15%) for North Carolina, the IFRs by age group are as follows:

0-17 = 0.00%
18-24 = 0.00%
25-49 = 0.12% (0.09% assuming 20% infection rate)
50-64 = 0.79% (0.60% assuming 20% infection rate)
65-74 = 2.83% (2.12% assuming 20% infection rate)
75+ = 8.80% (6.60% assuming 20% infection rate)

Overall IFR = 0.94% (0.71% assuming 20% of population has been infected)

---

Also, while this is an 'incomplete' picture as the data will certainly be updated over time, but you can follow the trend line. If someone really had the inclination they could probably examine CFR pre/post mass vaccination (say March/April 2021).

When you look at the trends, at least the quick visual of cases v deaths it 'appears' that CFR has dropped post winter peak.

---

CNN is mad at college football fans for going to games too. You knew this was coming. Left wing losers in this country never want normalcy to return. Fight them by going to games and living your best life: pic.twitter.com/9Vai4h2mtR

— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) September 7, 2021

Wayland said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

So re: school masking....Union County was one of few local to go no masking. Two weeks in, 375 students with Covid, but due to no masking and the corresponding quarantining process....over 5k students (out of 41k system wide) are out of school on quarantine.
Whatever your views on masking, whatever your views on quarantining based on positive cases, it can't be "healthy" to have 12% of the student pop out -- probably mostly completely healthy, with no arrangement this year for remote learning?

School board is meeting tonight. Will be interesting to see the path they take.

---

Have said it over and over.... and even reposted the video from summer of 2020. Over a year ago, it was a good strategy and discussed even here on this forum.

We need to 'test to stay', use paper antigen tests if exposed... and treat the result as 'good enough' so long as no symptoms when using the farce contact tracing.

Quarantining healthy people is simple minded and bad policy.

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Wayland said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

So re: school masking....Union County was one of few local to go no masking. Two weeks in, 375 students with Covid, but due to no masking and the corresponding quarantining process....over 5k students (out of 41k system wide) are out of school on quarantine.
Whatever your views on masking, whatever your views on quarantining based on positive cases, it can't be "healthy" to have 12% of the student pop out -- probably mostly completely healthy, with no arrangement this year for remote learning?

School board is meeting tonight. Will be interesting to see the path they take.

---

Have said it over and over.... and even reposted the video from summer of 2020. Over a year ago, it was a good strategy and discussed even here on this forum.

We need to 'test to stay', use paper antigen tests if exposed... and treat the result as 'good enough' so long as no symptoms when using the farce contact tracing.

Quarantining healthy people is simple minded and bad policy.

---

Right. I think the quarantining policy makes zero sense. So change that...I have no issue with it. Or wear masks. Or test. But You can't say no masks AND have an aggressive quarantining policy just so you can avoid having masks. But its stupid to have 12% of your students sitting out of school. And unlikely to get any better for a month or more.....(without policy change)

---

TheStorm said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Wayland said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

So re: school masking....Union County was one of few local to go no masking. Two weeks in, 375 students with Covid, but due to no masking and the corresponding quarantining process....over 5k students (out of 41k system wide) are out of school on quarantine.
Whatever your views on masking, whatever your views on quarantining based on positive cases, it can't be "healthy" to have 12% of the student pop out -- probably mostly completely healthy, with no arrangement this year for remote learning?

School board is meeting tonight. Will be interesting to see the path they take.

---

Have said it over and over.... and even reposted the video from summer of 2020. Over a year ago, it was a good strategy and discussed even here on this forum.

We need to 'test to stay', use paper antigen tests if exposed... and treat the result as 'good enough' so long as no symptoms when using the farce contact tracing.

Quarantining healthy people is simple minded and bad policy.

---

Right. I think the quarantining policy makes zero sense. So change that...I have no issue with it. Or wear masks. Or test. But You can't say no masks AND have an aggressive quarantining policy just so you can avoid having masks. But its stupid to have 12% of your students sitting out of school. And unlikely to get any better for a month or more.....(without policy change)

---

Interesting. So what is 12%? Isn't that like 3 kids out of a classroom of 25? Honestly, how unusual is that in real life?

Not that I don't agree with you on the contract tracing aspect of it... just that we're treating it that way to begin with for a subset of the population that is at zero risk (see Wayland and Davie's recently posted charts for reference),

Has the teacher's union called for a vaccine mandate for all of its members yet? I haven't paid enough attention to answer my own question.

---

TheStorm said:

---

My teacher's union question was more of a national one than a county one. Have any of the national teacher's unions called for a mandatory vaccine mandate for their members to be able to teach? Like I said, I haven't paid enough attention to know that answer, but I know what the NFLPA's answer was. Just curious, that's all...

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

Those that know...

Why did FDA approve the Phyzer Vaccine under the name BioNTech? I know they were working together; however, everyone is saying that the Phyzer vaccine has FDA approval.

The Phyzer vaccine does not have FDA approval, legally. The vaccine is the exact same; however, legally, BioNTech is the FDA approved vaccine. With the FDA approval; doesn't that change the liability?

---

I believe BioNTech is the developer of the vaccine. Pfizer is producing the vaccine for BioNTech, hence why BioNTech holds the FDA approval.

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

Those that know...

Why did FDA approve the Phyzer Vaccine under the name BioNTech? I know they were working together; however, everyone is saying that the Phyzer vaccine has FDA approval.

The Phyzer vaccine does not have FDA approval, legally. The vaccine is the exact same; however, legally, BioNTech is the FDA approved vaccine. With the FDA approval; doesn't that change the liability?

---

I believe BioNTech is the developer of the vaccine. Pfizer is producing the vaccine for BioNTech, hence why BioNTech holds the FDA approval.

---

So, technically, Phyzer vaccine has not been FDA approved?

---