Pat Chun accused of verbal assault...by a Pullman councilman.

[Observer11]

Are you implying, or is it your belief that all these alternatives (zinc, Ivermectin, vitamin d) are equally effective (or superior) in preventing the spread of covid as the vaccines?

I'm implying that each individual should have objective, uncensored access to information and alternatives regarding their health care choices.

And if others are opposed to that, they should come strong with their knowledge and have the ability to engage in the scientific method of proving/disproving that brought forth.

Or they can shout Horse Pills! and show their lack of intellect.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

Where? Post a link.

Here's one dealing with effectiveness of vaccine vs acquired immunity;

COVID-19 vaccines more protective than ‘natural’ immunity

A new study concludes that a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine is around five times more effective at preventing hospitalization than a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.

www.medicalnewstoday.com

Here's one debunking claims that vaccinated people are hospitalized more:

The COVID-19 vaccines provide strong protection against hospitalization and death; number of vaccinated people in hospital does not indicate evidence against this

The vast majority of the adult population in the U.K. have been vaccinated against COVID-19. Clinical trials showed that the COVID-19 vaccines are about 95% effective against hospitalization and death. This means that when cases are high, as they are currently in the U.K., we would expect to see...

healthfeedback.org

Here's one on the effectiveness of a booster:

Third Dose Prevents Infection

The evidence is in. Booster shots work.

sciencebasedmedicine.org

And here's one that deals with viral load for delta of those both vaccinated and unvaccinated, noting that while the "load" may be nearly the same for vaccinated and unvaccinated, the duration is much shorter.

Delta variant: Why vaccines are ‘not a silver bullet’

New research finds that 1 in 4 fully vaccinated people may become infected with the Delta variant of the coronavirus if they have exposure to it in the home.

www.medicalnewstoday.com

And of course the data from this past summer of the % of those hospitalized and dying who were not vaccinated vs vaccinated.

What else would you need to see?

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Here's one dealing with effectiveness of vaccine vs acquired immunity;

COVID-19 vaccines more protective than ‘natural’ immunity

A new study concludes that a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine is around five times more effective at preventing hospitalization than a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.

www.medicalnewstoday.com

Here's one debunking claims that vaccinated people are hospitalized more:

The COVID-19 vaccines provide strong protection against hospitalization and death; number of vaccinated people in hospital does not indicate evidence against this

The vast majority of the adult population in the U.K. have been vaccinated against COVID-19. Clinical trials showed that the COVID-19 vaccines are about 95% effective against hospitalization and death. This means that when cases are high, as they are currently in the U.K., we would expect to see...

healthfeedback.org

Here's one on the effectiveness of a booster:

Third Dose Prevents Infection

The evidence is in. Booster shots work.

sciencebasedmedicine.org

And here's one that deals with viral load for delta of those both vaccinated and unvaccinated, noting that while the "load" may be nearly the same for vaccinated and unvaccinated, the duration is much shorter.

Delta variant: Why vaccines are ‘not a silver bullet’

New research finds that 1 in 4 fully vaccinated people may become infected with the Delta variant of the coronavirus if they have exposure to it in the home.

www.medicalnewstoday.com

And of course the data from this past summer of the % of those hospitalized and dying who were not vaccinated vs vaccinated.

What else would you need to see?

My bolded sections specifically addressed vaccination vs transmission.
Wanna try again?

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

I'm implying that each individual should have objective, uncensored access to information and alternatives regarding their health care choices.

And if others are opposed to that, they should come strong with their knowledge and have the ability to engage in the scientific method of proving/disproving that brought forth.

Or they can shout Horse Pills! and show their lack of intellect.

I know, you've said that before and there is definite merit to that. I'm not talking about mandates where that argument is really relevant.

You seem to have a lot of convince in FLCCC and probably the BIRD group out of the UK. Do You think vaccines are no more effective vs zinc, vitamin d and Ivermectin and ill include hydroxychloroquine? That's all, yes or no?

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

My bolded sections specifically addressed vaccination vs transmission.
Wanna try again?

You'll note my last link addressed that. Taihtsat

 

[WillieThePimp]

Because the vaccines have shown to be effective in reducing transmission, shortening illness and preventing to a great amount hospitalizations and death.

On your first point I think we could say that pretty clearly before the delta variant but I don’t know that anything about transmission of vaccinated vs unvaccinated is clear post delta. I’ve looked (half-assed, admittedly) but have not seen anything definitive. Your other points are all the reasons anyone needs to know to get vaccinated.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

We agree more than we might seem “It took a lot of work and supreme court rulings and marches and federal troops and congressional action to get to where we are today BECAUSE racial impediments” were baked into men. The men were the “cake outside the words in the documents.”

But that’s not saying anything new. Or unique. Man has always been broken—since day one. What does CRT or the CRT Foundry say that we didn’t already know?

Perhaps we are too “krusty” to see it their way. But I think they think they have something new to say. And I think others think they are saying something new. If all CRT is saying is “A bunch of flawed men founded the country,” then I say “ Duh!” But I don’t think that’s all they mean. And the 1619 project, Kendi, et al, do think they are saying more than that.

And that’s where the disconnect lies.

You are making an argument about the "heart" of men. I'll not fight that. But the effective result of that way of thinking was written in the constitution originally in Article 1, SEC 2, clause 3 and then again made the effective law of the land in Dredd Scott. Congress enacted the Missouri compromise as mentioned earlier. These were all legal acts. There are probably dozens more examples of this way of thinking being supported by law and law-makers.

I'm not sure why this is so controversial. To say this nation was founded on the premise of the superiority of men over women is also true. Taihtsat

 

[dgibbons]

I didn’t start the public school education silliness - reread the thread.

BTW, still waiting for you to answer the question:

Does the science support that testing alone provides protection equal to that of vaccination?

Ball is in your court Willie. John McEnroe has already been linked for your reminder.

Would you rather share air with someone that gets tested periodically or with someone that has not?

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

On your first point I think we could say that pretty clearly before the delta variant but I don’t know that anything about transmission of vaccinated vs unvaccinated is clear post delta. I’ve looked (half-assed, admittedly) but have not seen anything definitive. Your other points are all the reasons anyone needs to know to get vaccinated.

Agree. I included that new research in my last link from MedicalNewsToday.

 

[WillieThePimp]

Ball is in your court Willie. John McEnroe has already been linked for your reminder.

Would you rather share air with someone that gets tested periodically or with someone that has not?

Does the science support that testing alone provides protection equal to that of vaccination?

 

[dgibbons]

I've always felt this question misses the mark. The answer is "it depends". Am I a vaccinated person sharing the air with someone who isn't vaccinated and is being tested periodically vs. sharing the air with someone whom is vaccinated?I'd rather be vaccinated sharing the air with someone whom is also vaccinated. To me, that is the best solution. Taihtsat

The fundamental question is the same- Would you rather share air with someone that is tested regularly, or with someone that is not?

Given the waning efficacy of the vaccines, the government's refusal to acknowledge the existence of natural immunity, and the lack of data on how many have actually have been infected and recovered, introducing variables doesn't accomplish anything.

 

[dgibbons]

Does the science support that testing alone provides protection equal to that of vaccination?

Answer the question.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

You'll note my last link addressed that. Taihtsat

The headline:

Delta variant: Vaccines protect from severe disease but do not stop all transmission​

What am I missing?

 

[Flatlandcoug]

You'll note I never used the phrase "What about ...?" I asked why we think the US is uniquely guilty of this. Why is the US different than any other country? I ask this not to say "See! They do it too!" but to say "See! We overcame the same notions that others have had!" It is *not* an excuse for the US not to improve. But to 1) show that racism isn't just about white supremacy and 2) to show that we have overcome what other nations have not. The fact that you read into it an excuse not to do anything is irrelevant to my point.

(BTW, I'll note again that this is not about the Chinese discriminating against anyone. Look it up.)

Now, the fact that the founders may have held notions that some races are inferior is tangential to the creation of the Declaration and the Constitution. The ideas captured in the Declaration or Constitution do not mention race. If they were as racially motivated as the 1619 project and others here state, then it hardly makes sense that such notions would be left out. Further, such notions were not unique to the United States. Nor are such notions limited to those of European founding.

The point here is not that there were white supremacists at the founding. Everyone agrees that there were. The point here is that despite there being white supremacists, the founding documents of the United States clearly espouse equality. The fact that this was ignored by much of the leadership early in the republic's history and the radical change that has occurred since then is proof that the founding is not racist in nature. And this is further demonstrated by the fact that the only mention of race in the Constitution is the 15th amendment which was in response to the Black Codes and others' twisting of the Constitution.

The problem, as I see it, is that many consider the US as inherently racist, or at least founded on racist principles, because white supremacy existed--perhaps was even prevalent--at the time of the founding. They way I see it is that the founding documents were absent such ideas despite its prevalence at the time. And it is precisely that fact that we have been able to make so much progress in civil rights. And this is not to say we don't have more work to do--certainly we do--but to deny the very idea that the US was founded on racism.

Now, you seem to think that the Constitution was intentionally constructed so that "the ignorant masses could screw things up for the folks setting up the government." It is this perspective that assumes things about the minds of the founders. This is assuming the worst of people. And by assuming the worst we set up institutions for failure. No institution can survive without trust. And by destroying the foundation, this would lead to destruction of the country itself. I pray that such a notion is never sincerely held by any significant portion of the populace.

You actually did say "what about". I clipped the text below from your post that I originally commented on.....

What about the Malay with respect to the Chinese? Is the US uniquely guilty of racism?

As far as the mindset of the founding fathers, it's important to remember that their thinking wasn't anything unusual. All of Europe viewed Africans as an inferior group of people. We all know that slavery and human trafficking has been common throughout human history, and most often, race wasn't a primary driver in determining who could be a slave. A lot of the thinking that went into the founding documents wasn't "racist" in the way that we think of it today.

We don't go through our lives being anti-dog and looking for ways to keep dogs subservient to us, but we certainly don't view dog as our equals. In many ways, the founding fathers viewed their slaves in the same way. Dumb, uneducated beasts that were born to serve their masters. They didn't hate black people any more than we hate dogs today.

If you don't think that the electoral college was designed to keep the "ignorant masses" from taking control....that just means you don't understand the creation of the electoral college. If you do some research, you'll see that the framers of our constitution did not trust the general public. Read this article (History.com Electoral College History) if you want a better understanding. The electoral college is a messy compromise that was created under the notion that slaves were only worth 3/5 of a person, you couldn't trust the ignorant masses, giving too much power to urban areas was bad and you couldn't trust congress to not be corrupt. And it was absolutely set up to keep the wealthy land owners at the helm of decision making.

 

[Observer11]

I know, you've said that before and there is definite merit to that. I'm not talking about mandates where that argument is really relevant.

You seem to have a lot of convince in FLCCC and probably the BIRD group out of the UK. Do You think vaccines are no more effective vs zinc, vitamin d and Ivermectin and ill include hydroxychloroquine? That's all, yes or no?

What I think is effective for me is irrelevant for you and vice versa. Nor would I ever ask what form of medical malady you may have or treatment you receive. It's none of my f'ing business.

We should each have access to the same information and those providing treatments should have the same legal exposure as any other provider of pharmaceuticals and medical treatments.

I am absolutely against mandates for the lack thereof. Put those protections in and perhaps can find common ground.

Or you can be like Willie and hurl snide remarks and no substance.

 

[WillieThePimp]

Answer the question.

And still all I get from you is crickets.

 

[dgibbons]

And still all I get from you is crickets.

Why are you afraid of answering the question?

 

[CougInSpain]

On your first point I think we could say that pretty clearly before the delta variant but I don’t know that anything about transmission of vaccinated vs unvaccinated is clear post delta. I’ve looked (half-assed, admittedly) but have not seen anything definitive. Your other points are all the reasons anyone needs to know to get vaccinated.

If the point is to induce a response with one's own immune system via a vaccination, then why isn't natural immunity a major focus for the same type of response/protection against Covid? 2021 sera infection of Covid clearly shows equal if not better protection against the Delta variant (even more so against WT & A/B variants) in comparison to any of the mRNA vaccines. Not only that, it lasts a lot longer as well. But yeah lets bury our heads in the sand and pretend the vaccine will be the cure all to this. I've never seen more incompetence and reluctance of acknowledgement to such a basic human biological event.

 

[WillieThePimp]

Why are you afraid of answering the question?

A tangential question is not an answer to a question. You’ve been dodging and deflecting my question ever since I posed it to you.

 

[HometownCoug]

You actually did say "what about". I clipped the text below from your post that I originally commented on.....

What about the Malay with respect to the Chinese? Is the US uniquely guilty of racism?

Fair enough. I was thinking of the sentence preceeding that: "But why limit the question to the US?"

And as I explained, this wasn't about dismissing racism in the US, which is why people usually mean by Whataboutism, but to explain that the sin of racism is not unique to the US. And contrasting the US with these other cases we see how much the US has moved since then. If people quit acting like what has happened in the US is something uniquely wrong, they might be more likely to see the progress.

If you don't think that the electoral college was designed to keep the "ignorant masses" from taking control....that just means you don't understand the creation of the electoral college. If you do some research, you'll see that the framers of our constitution did not trust the general public. Read this article (History.com Electoral College History) if you want a better understanding. The electoral college is a messy compromise that was created under the notion that slaves were only worth 3/5 of a person, you couldn't trust the ignorant masses, giving too much power to urban areas was bad and you couldn't trust congress to not be corrupt. And it was absolutely set up to keep the wealthy land owners at the helm of decision making.

It is absolutely not true that slaves "were only worth 3/5 of a person." The Constitution says "Representatives ... shall be apportioned among the several States ... which shall be determined by adding to the Whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

This was about apportionment only. And the 3/5 compromise was to deny Southern states representation based on their slaves. Indeed, it was anti-slavery in nature. It wasn't about not trusting the masses. Your link shows far too much bias and not enough nuance. Even your link says:

"The result was the controversial “three-fifths compromise,” in which three-fifths of the enslaved Black population would be counted toward allocating representatives and electors and calculating federal taxes."

Again, only apportionment, not being "only worth 3/5 of a person."

The northern states wanted only free people--black or white--to be counted for apportionment. The southern states wanted all people--free and slave--to be counted (your link doesn't mention this). The 3/5ths compromise was a compromise to limit southern power and the influence of slaveholding states. Indeed, the slaveholding states did not want direct elections of the president because slaves could not vote. They had the population, but not votes. It wasn't about not trusting the masses, but recognizing that a direct election or apportionment based on the full population would give the north more power than them.

The 3/5ths compromise was just that--a compromise. And one that is quite reasonable given the time. Had the Constitution outright banned slavery, no southern state would ratify it. Had the Constitution apportioned solely based on population, no northern state would ratify it. The answer was not to make the enemy the perfect of the good, and a compromise was necessary. It worked.

 

[dgibbons]

A tangential question is not an answer to a question. You’ve been dodging and deflecting my question ever since I posed it to you.

You can go back and read the thread. You're wrong. Answer the question.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

Fair enough. I was thinking of the sentence preceeding that: "But why limit the question to the US?"

And as I explained, this wasn't about dismissing racism in the US, which is why people usually mean by Whataboutism, but to explain that the sin of racism is not unique to the US. And contrasting the US with these other cases we see how much the US has moved since then. If people quit acting like what has happened in the US is something uniquely wrong, they might be more likely to see the progress.



It is absolutely not true that slaves "were only worth 3/5 of a person." The Constitution says "Representatives ... shall be apportioned among the several States ... which shall be determined by adding to the Whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

This was about apportionment only. And the 3/5 compromise was to deny Southern states representation based on their slaves. Indeed, it was anti-slavery in nature. It wasn't about not trusting the masses. Your link shows far too much bias and not enough nuance. Even your link says:

"The result was the controversial “three-fifths compromise,” in which three-fifths of the enslaved Black population would be counted toward allocating representatives and electors and calculating federal taxes."

Again, only apportionment, not being "only worth 3/5 of a person."

The northern states wanted only free people--black or white--to be counted for apportionment. The southern states wanted all people--free and slave--to be counted (your link doesn't mention this). The 3/5ths compromise was a compromise to limit southern power and the influence of slaveholding states. Indeed, the slaveholding states did not want direct elections of the president because slaves could not vote. They had the population, but not votes. It wasn't about not trusting the masses, but recognizing that a direct election or apportionment based on the full population would give the north more power than them.

The 3/5ths compromise was just that--a compromise. And one that is quite reasonable given the time. Had the Constitution outright banned slavery, no southern state would ratify it. Had the Constitution apportioned solely based on population, no northern state would ratify it. The answer was not to make the enemy the perfect of the good, and a compromise was necessary. It worked.

Your last paragraph makes my point back in post #180. Wemwouldntnhave made it this far but for ratifying a system of white supremacy. At its foundation, thats essentially what we were based on.Taihtsat

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

What I think is effective for me is irrelevant for you and vice versa. Nor would I ever ask what form of medical malady you may have or treatment you receive. It's none of my f'ing business.

We should each have access to the same information and those providing treatments should have the same legal exposure as any other provider of pharmaceuticals and medical treatments.

I am absolutely against mandates for the lack thereof. Put those protections in and perhaps can find common ground.

Or you can be like Willie and hurl snide remarks and no substance.

Have i hurled snide remarks with no substance?

I'll buy your first paragraph. I take issue with your second one when the folks prescribing treatments have no sound evidence to back them up, especially when compared to the cheaper and effective alternative (vaccine).

You don't typically seem to be one that withholds your feelings or opinions on things. You are witty and often humorous in your "takes". I'm surprised you haven't been bold enough to take a yes or no position on the question i posed. I guess you'd rather not say.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

The fundamental question is the same- Would you rather share air with someone that is tested regularly, or with someone that is not?

Given the waning efficacy of the vaccines, the government's refusal to acknowledge the existence of natural immunity, and the lack of data on how many have actually have been infected and recovered, introducing variables doesn't accomplish anything.

I'd rather share air with someone regularly tested. But aquired immunity also seems to wane. I agree with you that naturally aquired infection should be considered. Taihtsat

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

If you go back and read what

The headline:

Delta variant: Vaccines protect from severe disease but do not stop all transmission​

What am I missing?

If you go back and read what I said about reducing transmission that you responded to and asked for sources...the link i posted mentions that the reduction comes from a shortened period of infection for the lower percentage of vaccinated people who become infected. Thats how vaccinations help reduce transmission. Taihtsat

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

If you go back and read what
If you go back and read what I said about reducing transmission that you responded to and asked for sources...the link i posted mentions that the reduction comes from a shortened period of infection for the lower percentage of vaccinated people who become infected. Thats how vaccinations help reduce transmission. Taihtsat

While thats fine, and probably can't be empirically proven due to asymptomatic carriers (see UC Berkeley), the messaging that is still being delivered by many sources is "vaccinations STOP the transmission of SarsCov2 virus", most likely because that's what the official messaging was when the vaccine was first rolled out.

I'm sure that I don't have to explain to you that having a population that believes that they're bulletproof because they received a vaccine under false pretenses is problematic, and can lead to riskier behavior than if they hadn't been vaccinated.

 

[HometownCoug]

Your last paragraph makes my point back in post #180. Wemwouldntnhave made it this far but for ratifying a system of white supremacy. At its foundation, thats essentially what we were based on.Taihtsat

I read things differently. Despite those who were white supremacists present at the time, the Constitution ended up not giving them more power. Had the founding be as racist as some claim, why would the 3/5ths clause exist at all?

Tell me what alternate history you think would have created the US? Seems to me the option was no Constitution all, separate countries, or what we created. The last option being the best one.

Yes, there were those who did not think Africans (or Native Americans, or Catholics, or others) should have any power in the new government. Yet despite this, the Constitution was created to deny them power. This seems contrary to the notion of the US founded on racist principles.

 

[HometownCoug]

Wemwouldntnhave made it this far but for ratifying a system of white supremacy.

One more note.

I do think “Wemwouldntnhave” without compromising with white supremacists.

i do not think a “system of white supremacy” was created.

This seems to be the fundamental disagreement.

 

[Observer11]

Have i hurled snide remarks with no substance?

I'll buy your first paragraph. I take issue with your second one when the folks prescribing treatments have no sound evidence to back them up, especially when compared to the cheaper and effective alternative (vaccine).

You don't typically seem to be one that withholds your feelings or opinions on things. You are witty and often humorous in your "takes". I'm surprised you haven't been bold enough to take a yes or no position on the question i posed. I guess you'd rather not say.

Apologies for the perception of the use of the personal 'you' versus the plural 'you'. You (personal) are unlike you know who (Willie).

My opinion and feelings are well know. You (personal though could be plural) do you. I'll do me. You stay out of me and I'll stay out of you. I know me better than you do and you know you better than I do. You trust me that I'll do what's best for both of us and I'll trust you to do the same. You respect me for exercising intelligence and reaching my conclusion and I respect you for exercising and reaching your conclusion. We (collectively) have sufficient protections under the law to co-exist by recognizing there are religious and medical exemptions that are valid - even though those may not be in exact alignment with our own choices or beliefs.

And no, the "state" does not know you better than you know you or me knowing me. And therefore has no business putting things in you without proper checks and balances via legal recourse and liability on those producing whatever 'they' want to put into 'you'.

This is the point where a flurry of what-about-ism responses should start quoting the above. You all have fun with that.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Apologies for the perception of the use of the personal 'you' versus the plural 'you'. You (personal) are unlike you know who (Willie).

My opinion and feelings are well know. You (personal though could be plural) do you. I'll do me. You stay out of me and I'll stay out of you. I know me better than you do and you know you better than I do. You trust me that I'll do what's best for both of us and I'll trust you to do the same. You respect me for exercising intelligence and reaching my conclusion and I respect you for exercising and reaching your conclusion. We (collectively) have sufficient protections under the law to co-exist by recognizing there are religious and medical exemptions that are valid - even though those may not be in exact alignment with our own choices or beliefs.

And no, the "state" does not know you better than you know you or me knowing me. And therefore has no business putting things in you without proper checks and balances via legal recourse and liability on those producing whatever 'they' want to put into 'you'.

This is the point where a flurry of what-about-ism responses should start quoting the above. You all have fun with that.

Thats the rub.

There is no mutual respect; you (personal) have a divergent opinion, therefore not only are you wrong, but you are ignorant, stupid, and dangerous to yourself and others. This conclusion is arrived at capriciously and with no thought or consideration.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

I read things differently. Despite those who were white supremacists present at the time, the Constitution ended up not giving them more power. Had the founding be as racist as some claim, why would the 3/5ths clause exist at all?

Tell me what alternate history you think would have created the US? Seems to me the option was no Constitution all, separate countries, or what we created. The last option being the best one.

Yes, there were those who did not think Africans (or Native Americans, or Catholics, or others) should have any power in the new government. Yet despite this, the Constitution was created to deny them power. This seems contrary to the notion of the US founded on racist principles.

The 3/5 existed because the south demanded to have SOME portion of their property count for the purposes of representation. That was an oroginal condieration for how to apportion - shouldnonly property owners count as citizens worth representing. They felt there was no way they could compete politically with the north due to the population imbalance. The north absolutely didnt want to count slaves as full persons because they felt the south would then dominate politically. Adams and Madison were very fearful of the colonies winding up like Europe so they pushed or the union to hold so as to not have unravel the revolution.

As it was, the North's fear materialized with 4 of the first 5 presidents were Virginian's.

I don't think there is an alternate history that would have got us here. It probably is the best outcome. But that doesn't change my original premise that AT THE START it was founded on one group (whites) being supreme over another group (blacks). And it didn't end with the civil war. And if slavery had not been compromised INTO the founding we would never have got to where we are today as a 50 state country. Taihtsat

 

[justinbgocougs]

Vermont is the most vaccinated state in the country with 91% of everyone 12 and older at least partially vaccinated. Vermont now has one of the highest infection rates in the country with daily cases more than 300% higher than November 2020.

 

[OscarTheGrouch]

Vermont is the most vaccinated state in the country with 91% of everyone 12 and older at least partially vaccinated. Vermont now has one of the highest infection rates in the country with daily cases more than 300% higher than November

Think there might be a flaw in comparing Vermont’s surge only to its own previous case #s? Vermont has had the fewest cases per capital than any state other than Hawaii. So this surge when Delta got To the region looks bigger in comparison to the much smaller waves it had experienced previously.

how dies VT’s wave compare to the waves other states experrienced in cases per capita (and hospitalizations, deaths, etc)? And would it be larger if fewer people were vaccinated? Hint: These answers would not support the point you are attempting to make. The only thing your chart shows is that vaccination doesn’t eliminate transmission especially of Delta variant. No one is disputing that.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

The only thing your chart shows is that vaccination doesn’t eliminate transmission especially of Delta variant. No one is disputing that.

Bull, it's exactly the message many pundits are still delivering, stop pretending that it's not.

It also lends credence to my supposition that, due to pooressaging vis a vis vaccination and transmission, people are acting more recklessly that they should, leading to increased transmission.

 

[COUGinNCW]

Bull, it's exactly the message many pundits are still delivering, stop pretending that it's not.

It also lends credence to my supposition that, due to pooressaging vis a vis vaccination and transmission, people are acting more recklessly that they should, leading to increased transmission.

So your saying people are acting recklessly so there should be more restrictions?

 

[justinbgocougs]

So your saying people are acting recklessly so there should be more restrictions?

You can restrict deez nuts.

 

[95coug]

Vermont is the most vaccinated state in the country with 91% of everyone 12 and older at least partially vaccinated. Vermont now has one of the highest infection rates in the country with daily cases more than 300% higher than November 2020.

If I'm reading this chart right, even in their 300% spike, Vermont's rate is a fraction of most states. Their scale is cases per million, rather than cases per 100K. Plotted on the normal scale, their spike barely registers.

The real question js...what measures has Vermont been using that makes their transmission rate so low?

 

[justinbgocougs]

If I'm reading this chart right, even in their 300% spike, Vermont's rate is a fraction of most states. Their scale is cases per million, rather than cases per 100K. Plotted on the normal scale, their spike barely registers.

The real question js...what measures has Vermont been using that makes their transmission rate so low?

Weee more mental gymnastics by the crazy left

 

[95coug]

Weee more mental gymnastics by the crazy left

You say mental gymnastics, I say basic math. A case rate of 500 per 1 million is the same as 50 per 100K....which is pretty low. Not a single county in Washington is that low, and the statewide rate 7-day rate right now is more than double that.

I'm nowhere near the left, I can just read a graph. If you monkey with the axis scales, you can make the same data look like nothing or like the end of the world.

 

[justinbgocougs]

You say mental gymnastics, I say basic math. A case rate of 500 per 1 million is the same as 50 per 100K....which is pretty low. Not a single county in Washington is that low, and the statewide rate 7-day rate right now is more than double that.

I'm nowhere near the left, I can just read a graph. If you monkey with the axis scales, you can make the same data look like nothing or like the end of the world.

That doesn't answer the fact that it shows pre-vaccine numbers and post-vaccine numbers. There is still a spike.

The vaccine looks pointless, no?