Coronavirus

[Reacher]

I think I linked something about that earlier. Traditional flu is down something like 99.9%. 

[Lostin76]

32 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

Very interesting.  The statistic I've copied below is hard to believe.  

There's hardly any flu this year. Coronavirus restrictions may be responsible - CNN

In an average year, hundreds of thousands of people are hospitalized with flu. So far this flu season, just 155 people confirmed to have influenza have ended up in the hospital.

 

Yep, we were expecting/hoping this would be the case and it’s WAY down this year. Silver lining I guess. 

[IU Scott]

3 hours ago, Lostin76 said:

Yep, we were expecting/hoping this would be the case and it’s WAY down this year. Silver lining I guess. 

Or Are they just reporting everything as Covid

[Joe_Hoopsier]

4 hours ago, Lostin76 said:

Yep, we were expecting/hoping this would be the case and it’s WAY down this year. Silver lining I guess. 

What ever miracle our Doctors did to solve the Flu (seems cured with those numbers), maybe they can do that to Covid. A guy can hope, right? 

[mrflynn03]

Something I've read recently when it comes to vaccine production.  There are only so many facilities that produce it.

Those same facilities produce 100's of other drugs. So there is some prioritization.  

There are alot of rare diseases, and alot of people with disease that need therapeutics. You cant just shut down the production of those drugs and prioritize covid vaccines.  

@Billingsley99 has taught us alot about Ayden and mitochondrial disease. We dont want to disrupt his supply of medication or millions of others. How are you all doing btw?

So it's a balancing act. 

So it's more than just distribution.

Edited February 10, 2021 by mrflynn03

[Lostin76]

13 hours ago, IU Scott said:

Or Are they just reporting everything as Covid

They are totally different, so that would be weird. And the flu isn’t as contagious, so we may have found a new tool in fighting the flu - frequent handwashing, some form of social distancing, and masks. 

[Billingsley99]

12 hours ago, mrflynn03 said:

Something I've read recently when it comes to vaccine production.  There are only so many facilities that produce it.

Those same facilities produce 100's of other drugs. So there is some prioritization.  

There are alot of rare diseases, and alot of people with disease that need therapeutics. You cant just shut down the production of those drugs and prioritize covid vaccines.  

@Billingsley99 has taught us alot about Ayden and mitochondrial disease. We dont want to disrupt his supply of medication or millions of others. How are you all doing btw?

So it's a balancing act. 

So it's more than just distribution.

Thank you. I just can't wait until the date that our whole family gets the vaccine.  Ayden is doing great praise and glory to GOD. Appointment today to do hearing test hoping all goes well. 

[Reacher]

There is a lot of powerful stuff in this peer reviewed paper which is brutally critical of how the CDC changed all sorts of policies and broke all sorts of laws. Why? The last paragraph I quote below sums it up nicely and explains why the "this time is different" excuse doesn't hold water.

https://cf5e727d-d02d-4d71-89ff-9fe2d3ad957f.filesusr.com/ugd/adf864_c39029cd980642e48797cdb2ef965972.pdf

As a result, people hospitalized with a positive PCR test could be tested every 24 hours and each time counted as new COVID-19 to the complete absence of basic rules to ensure that this could not happen.

The CDC published guidelines on March 24, 2020 that substantially altered how cause of death is recorded exclusively for COVID-19. This change was enacted apparently without public opportunity for comment or peer-review. As a result, a capricious alteration to data collection has compromised the accuracy, quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of their published data, leading to a significant increase in COVID-19 fatalities.

...the reality is that COVID-19 became emphasized as a cause of death as frequently as possible, while comorbidity was simultaneously deemphasized as causes of death.

We believe this deliberate decision by the CDC and NVSS to deemphasize pre-existing comorbidities, in favor of emphasizing COVID-19 as a cause of death, is in violation of 44 U.S. Code 3504 (e)(1)(b), which states the activities of the Federal statistical system shall ensure “the integrity, objectivity, impartiality, utility, and confidentiality of information collected for statistical purposes.”

This violation has inevitably resulted in COVID-19 data for cases, hospitalizations, and fatalities being artificially elevated, and definitively compromises prudent decision making at federal and state executive levels. This includes policy enforcement for a public health crisis that may not have existed had the CDC abided by the laws that ensure the accuracy of data collection

Public health policies that create more collateral damage while attempting to avoid an infection with a 99.05% rate of recovery in the vast majority of citizens must be objectively investigated and critically questioned if the goal of living in a healthy society is to be realized.

Federal agencies have a legal obligation to provide the most accurate data to the public, fellow agencies, and policy makers they are advising, and they have a responsibility to abide by every federal law. This responsibility to collect, analyze, and publish data accurately, transparently, and with unquestionable integrity increases exponentially during a national crisis. It is concerning that the CDC may have willfully failed to collect, analyze, and publish accurate data used by elected officials to develop public health policy for a nation in crisis

[tdhoosier]

29 minutes ago, Reacher said:

There is a lot of powerful stuff in this peer reviewed paper which is brutally critical of how the CDC changed all sorts of policies and broke all sorts of laws. Why? The last paragraph I quote below sums it up nicely and explains why the "this time is different" excuse doesn't hold water.

https://cf5e727d-d02d-4d71-89ff-9fe2d3ad957f.filesusr.com/ugd/adf864_c39029cd980642e48797cdb2ef965972.pdf

As a result, people hospitalized with a positive PCR test could be tested every 24 hours and each time counted as new COVID-19 to the complete absence of basic rules to ensure that this could not happen.

The CDC published guidelines on March 24, 2020 that substantially altered how cause of death is recorded exclusively for COVID-19. This change was enacted apparently without public opportunity for comment or peer-review. As a result, a capricious alteration to data collection has compromised the accuracy, quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of their published data, leading to a significant increase in COVID-19 fatalities.

...the reality is that COVID-19 became emphasized as a cause of death as frequently as possible, while comorbidity was simultaneously deemphasized as causes of death.

We believe this deliberate decision by the CDC and NVSS to deemphasize pre-existing comorbidities, in favor of emphasizing COVID-19 as a cause of death, is in violation of 44 U.S. Code 3504 (e)(1)(b), which states the activities of the Federal statistical system shall ensure “the integrity, objectivity, impartiality, utility, and confidentiality of information collected for statistical purposes.”

This violation has inevitably resulted in COVID-19 data for cases, hospitalizations, and fatalities being artificially elevated, and definitively compromises prudent decision making at federal and state executive levels. This includes policy enforcement for a public health crisis that may not have existed had the CDC abided by the laws that ensure the accuracy of data collection

Public health policies that create more collateral damage while attempting to avoid an infection with a 99.05% rate of recovery in the vast majority of citizens must be objectively investigated and critically questioned if the goal of living in a healthy society is to be realized.

Federal agencies have a legal obligation to provide the most accurate data to the public, fellow agencies, and policy makers they are advising, and they have a responsibility to abide by every federal law. This responsibility to collect, analyze, and publish data accurately, transparently, and with unquestionable integrity increases exponentially during a national crisis. It is concerning that the CDC may have willfully failed to collect, analyze, and publish accurate data used by elected officials to develop public health policy for a nation in crisis

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/feb/05/blog-posting/no-cdc-isnt-inflating-coronavirus-statistics/

Why does everything have to be a conspiracy these days? Until excessive death figures (which is really the only true indicator) don't add up to CDC recordings then I'm not buying any of this crap. Plus the author is looney toons; google him and take a look at all the other bogus claims he's made about the Moderna vaccine. 

[5fouls]

1 hour ago, Lostin76 said:

They are totally different, so that would be weird. And the flu isn’t as contagious, so we may have found a new tool in fighting the flu - frequent handwashing, some form of social distancing, and masks. 

But, are social distancing, and to a lesser extent, masks, a viable long term solution to combat the flu on an annual basis?  Restaurant, Movie Theaters, Sporting Events, etc. will wither away and die if we have to social distance and/or mask up every flu season.    

One thing that will hopefully come of this is that symptomatic people stay home.  Regardless of whether what you have happens to be Covid, the flu, or simply a common cold, staying home when you have a fever, couch, etc. will slow the spread.

[Lostin76]

22 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

But, are social distancing, and to a lesser extent, masks, a viable long term solution to combat the flu on an annual basis?  Restaurant, Movie Theaters, Sporting Events, etc. will wither away and die if we have to social distance and/or mask up every flu season.    

One thing that will hopefully come of this is that symptomatic people stay home.  Regardless of whether what you have happens to be Covid, the flu, or simply a common cold, staying home when you have a fever, couch, etc. will slow the spread.

I don’t think this level of social distancing is doable for the future, but some form of social distancing could help in flu season. Maybe just being smart in/or avoiding crowds. I don’t want to go back to COVID measures ever again!

[5fouls]

Just now, Lostin76 said:

I don’t think this level of social distancing is doable for the future, but some form of social distancing could help in flu season. Maybe just being smart in/or avoiding crowds. I don’t want to go back to COVID measures ever again!

That's my concern though.  'Avoiding Crowds'.  In the future, I want to go to an IU game, with a jam-packed Assembly Hall, not wear a mask, and be able to scream my brains out, without worrying about it being flu season.  Any type of social distancing measure will prevent that experience from happening.  

Is there risk in catching the flu in that environment?  Yes, there absolutely is.  But, I'm willing to take that risk.  I'm not with Covid, as things stand now.  But, with the flu I am.  

[5fouls]

According to the Indiana Department of Health map, only 1 of the State's 92 counties is in Red status.  Just a few weeks ago, all 92 counties were in Red.

ISDH - Novel Coronavirus: Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) (in.gov)

[tdhoosier]

52 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

That's my concern though.  'Avoiding Crowds'.  In the future, I want to go to an IU game, with a jam-packed Assembly Hall, not wear a mask, and be able to scream my brains out, without worrying about it being flu season.  Any type of social distancing measure will prevent that experience from happening.  

Is there risk in catching the flu in that environment?  Yes, there absolutely is.  But, I'm willing to take that risk.  I'm not with Covid, as things stand now.  But, with the flu I am.  

I'm sure the good habits we've developed of not touching our face and washing hands will factor into the future spreading of the flu. We can at least do that without masks and distancing. 

I also think better education on vaccination is helping. Until last year I was always under the impression that a flu shot was to decrease my risk of getting the flu, which is true. But I overlooked the bigger benefit, which is that by getting a shot I'm also doing my part to mitigate the spread. Realizing this, I'll be more likely not to miss my annual flu shot. 

[Lostin76]

1 hour ago, 5fouls said:

That's my concern though.  'Avoiding Crowds'.  In the future, I want to go to an IU game, with a jam-packed Assembly Hall, not wear a mask, and be able to scream my brains out, without worrying about it being flu season.  Any type of social distancing measure will prevent that experience from happening.  

Is there risk in catching the flu in that environment?  Yes, there absolutely is.  But, I'm willing to take that risk.  I'm not with Covid, as things stand now.  But, with the flu I am.  

Oh absolutely. I’ll risk the flu for that. It’s never even been a concern of mine before. But I hope that people think more about hand washing and being more aware. This is coming from a germaphobe though. 

3 minutes ago, tdhoosier said:

I'm sure the good habits we've developed of not touching our face and washing hands will factor into the future spreading of the flu. We can at least do that without masks and distancing. 

I also think better education on vaccination is helping. Until last year I was always under the impression that a flu shot was to decrease my risk of getting the flu, which is true. But I overlooked the bigger benefit, which is that by getting a shot I'm also doing my part to mitigate the spread. Realizing this, I'll be more likely not to miss my annual flu shot. 

That’s my hope as well. Not touching your face is HUGE. But also very hard to do IRL.

[5fouls]

Fully vaccinated people can skip Covid quarantines, CDC says

From CNN Health’s Maggie Fox

People who have been fully vaccinated against coronavirus -- meaning they have recieved two doses of either the Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna vaccine-- can skip quarantine if they are exposed to someone infected with the virus, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Wednesday.

“Fully vaccinated persons who meet criteria will no longer be required to quarantine following an exposure to someone with COVID-19,” the CDC said in updates to its webpage with guidance on vaccination.

“Vaccinated persons with an exposure to someone with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 are not required to quarantine if they meet all of the following criteria,” the CDC added.

The criteria: They must be fully vaccinated – having had both shots with at least two weeks having passed since the second shot. But the CDC says protection may wear off after three months, so people who had their last shot three months ago or more should quarantine if they are exposed. They also should quarantine if they show symptoms, the CDC said.

“This recommendation to waive quarantine for people with vaccine-derived immunity aligns with quarantine recommendations for those with natural immunity, which eases implementation,” the CDC said.

People who have been vaccinated should still watch for symptoms for 14 days after they have been exposed to someone who is infected, the CDC said.

“At this time, vaccinated persons should continue to follow current guidance to protect themselves and others, including wearing a mask, staying at least 6 feet away from others, avoiding crowds, avoiding poorly ventilated spaces, covering coughs and sneezes, washing hands often, following CDC travel guidance, and following any applicable workplace or school guidance, including guidance related to personal protective equipment use or SARS-CoV-2 testing,” the agency said.

[tdhoosier]

1 hour ago, 5fouls said:

But the CDC says protection may wear off after three months, so people who had their last shot three months ago or more should quarantine if they are exposed.

Let’s hope they set this time frame because they only have 3 months of data (so far) vs. really thinking immunity will only last for 3 months. Because that would suck. 

Hopefully that 3 month guideline will be increasing. 

[Reacher]

11 hours ago, tdhoosier said:

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/feb/05/blog-posting/no-cdc-isnt-inflating-coronavirus-statistics/

Why does everything have to be a conspiracy these days? Until excessive death figures (which is really the only true indicator) don't add up to CDC recordings then I'm not buying any of this crap. Plus the author is looney toons; google him and take a look at all the other bogus claims he's made about the Moderna vaccine. 

I did not read anything about a conspiracy.  Politifact is proven to have a huge bias and been wrong on many issues. Did you read the paper? Do you disagree that the CDC changed all sorts of rules and failed to follow procedures, and the law, in dozens of instances? Don't cherry pick one item and ignore the rest. The fact is, the CDC changed its guidelines and didn't follow procedures. I don't see how anyone can argue that point. 

[tdhoosier]

17 minutes ago, Reacher said:

I did not read anything about a conspiracy.  Politifact is proven to have a huge bias and been wrong on many issues. Did you read the paper? Do you disagree that the CDC changed all sorts of rules and failed to follow procedures, and the law, in dozens of instances? Don't cherry pick one item and ignore the rest. The fact is, the CDC changed its guidelines and didn't follow procedures. I don't see how anyone can argue that point. 

Dude, I’m “cherry picking” the conclusion they are implying: deaths are being over counted.  And even that is pondered with generalities rather than absolutes. It’s a whole lot of “if xxxx happens then yyyy could be be the logical conclusion.” It’s sloppy and incoherent. Everything else is just a distraction to cast suspicion on an conspiratorial outcome that isn’t true and they can’t prove. 

Get back to me when they have hard proof that proves their overall implication. 

[5fouls]

Calif. man tests positive for COVID-19 weeks after receiving 2nd vaccine dose (wave3.com)

Hopefully, stories like this will not discourage people from getting the vaccine.  The reality is:

• The Pfizer vaccine was only promoted as 95% effective.  So, 5 of every 100 people should expect this.
• If nothing else, the vaccine likely minimized the severity of his case.

My issue with the story is that it does not focus on the two bullets I listed above.  Instead it focuses on the new strains, and implies that is why the vaccine failed.  

If the media does not start giving a more balanced reporting of what is going on, we may never get out of this, because a large portion of the population just isn't going to believe what they hear.  

[Reacher]

9 hours ago, tdhoosier said:

Dude, I’m “cherry picking” the conclusion they are implying: deaths are being over counted.  And even that is pondered with generalities rather than absolutes. It’s a whole lot of “if xxxx happens then yyyy could be be the logical conclusion.” It’s sloppy and incoherent. Everything else is just a distraction to cast suspicion on an conspiratorial outcome that isn’t true and they can’t prove. 

Get back to me when they have hard proof that proves their overall implication. 

I see this as very simple. There are some undisputed facts. The CDC changed their procedures and did so without following their own guidelines and the law (as the linked paper pointed out). Covid deaths were over counted as a result. We have been discussing this for 9 months. You cannot just assume someone had Covid and then state that as the cause of their death when, even if they had Covid, it may have only been a contributing factor and not the sole cause of death. Because Covid cases and deaths were overreported, policy decisions were made that adversely affected many Americans contributing to even more deaths. You can argue the magnitude of any of the above but to argue that cases and deaths were not over counted and such talk is a "conspiracy theory" is not accurate at all. There have been dozens of examples of the overcounting of cases and deaths in this thread alone. A Bing search for "covid cases overcounted" returns 3.7 million results. 

To rely solely on excess deaths is wrong as well. Covid deaths could have been double counted but other deaths declined by an equal amount (due to less miles driven and therefore less automotive deaths and all sorts of other reasons) and there would be both excess Covid deaths and no overall rise in excess deaths. Correlation does not prove Causation. 

This game of criticizing the messenger is getting ridiculous as well. Should I say Fauci is looney because of all his false statements? If Donald Duck tells me 2+2 = 4 am I not supposed to believe him? 

[tdhoosier]

1 hour ago, Reacher said:

I see this as very simple. There are some undisputed facts. The CDC changed their procedures and did so without following their own guidelines and the law (as the linked paper pointed out). Covid deaths were over counted as a result. We have been discussing this for 9 months. You cannot just assume someone had Covid and then state that as the cause of their death when, even if they had Covid, it may have only been a contributing factor and not the sole cause of death. Because Covid cases and deaths were overreported, policy decisions were made that adversely affected many Americans contributing to even more deaths. You can argue the magnitude of any of the above but to argue that cases and deaths were not over counted and such talk is a "conspiracy theory" is not accurate at all. There have been dozens of examples of the overcounting of cases and deaths in this thread alone. A Bing search for "covid cases overcounted" returns 3.7 million results. 

To rely solely on excess deaths is wrong as well. Covid deaths could have been double counted but other deaths declined by an equal amount (due to less miles driven and therefore less automotive deaths and all sorts of other reasons) and there would be both excess Covid deaths and no overall rise in excess deaths. Correlation does not prove Causation. 

This game of criticizing the messenger is getting ridiculous as well. Should I say Fauci is looney because of all his false statements? If Donald Duck tells me 2+2 = 4 am I not supposed to believe him? 

Funny, the first 5 results Google brings up for me. And there lies our problem, algorithms:

How COVID Death Counts Become the Stuff of Conspiracy ...

khn.org › news › how-covid-death-counts-become-the-...

Nov 2, 2020 — Experts say President Trump's claim that COVID deaths are being overcounted is inaccurate. Most agree they are undercounted. Here's what ...

 

Trump Claims Doctors Are Overcounting Covid-19 Deaths To ...

www.forbes.com › sites › brucelee › 2020/10/27 › tru...

Oct 27, 2020 — Here is the response on Twitter from physicians and various medical societies to the statements made by Trump during a campaign rally in ...

 

Opinion: Are we undercounting or overcounting COVID-19 ...

www.marketwatch.com › story › are-we-undercounting-o...

Sep 30, 2020 — One might think that such an approach, by ignoring the pre-existing conditions, would skew the count of COVID deaths to the high side. On the ...

 

ACP: Falsely Accusing Physicians of Overcounting COVID-19 ...

www.acponline.org › acp-newsroom › acp-falsely-accu...

Oct 25, 2020 — Statement attributable to: Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, MACP President, American College of Physicians Philadelphia, PA (October 25, 2020) ...

 

Debunking the False Claim That COVID Death Counts Are ...

www.scientificamerican.com › article › debunking-the-...

Oct 20, 2020 — Scientific American is the essential guide to the most awe-inspiring advances in science and technology, explaining how they change our ...

 

And Im not 'solely' relying on excess deaths, but you do need to check claims against excess deaths to see if they add up. The example of automotive deaths......or suicides, or overdoses can be factored in, but you're assuming insane fluctuations. And I might add, the excessive deaths from the past year, including the COVID deaths, have plenty of room to factor these 'side effects' into the equation, yet, most health experts still believe COVID deaths are being under-counted. I can't seem to find it now but there was a JAMA study that factored in deaths of despair as a result of COVID overdoses, suicides, etc. at an increase of something like 50% over the mean and there were still more excess deaths than can be accounted for. (I'll keep on looking for this).

And there are just as many claims of under-reported deaths as there are over-reported deaths. Weren't you the one pointing out that Cuomo did this? That was thousands of under-reported deaths in one instance.  Who knows if they cancel each other out, but you can't assume all misreporting fall on the over-reporting side of the argument either.  

All that said, over-reportings, under-reportings and general sloppy recordings of such things is exactly why health experts rely on on excessive deaths figures. It's a back up....it's a way of asking: do these numbers add up? 

 

 

[Reacher]

5 hours ago, tdhoosier said:

Funny, the first 5 results Google brings up for me. And there lies our problem, algorithms:

How COVID Death Counts Become the Stuff of Conspiracy ...

khn.org › news › how-covid-death-counts-become-the-...

Nov 2, 2020 — Experts say President Trump's claim that COVID deaths are being overcounted is inaccurate. Most agree they are undercounted. Here's what ...

 

Trump Claims Doctors Are Overcounting Covid-19 Deaths To ...

www.forbes.com › sites › brucelee › 2020/10/27 › tru...

Oct 27, 2020 — Here is the response on Twitter from physicians and various medical societies to the statements made by Trump during a campaign rally in ...

 

Opinion: Are we undercounting or overcounting COVID-19 ...

www.marketwatch.com › story › are-we-undercounting-o...

Sep 30, 2020 — One might think that such an approach, by ignoring the pre-existing conditions, would skew the count of COVID deaths to the high side. On the ...

 

ACP: Falsely Accusing Physicians of Overcounting COVID-19 ...

www.acponline.org › acp-newsroom › acp-falsely-accu...

Oct 25, 2020 — Statement attributable to: Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, MACP President, American College of Physicians Philadelphia, PA (October 25, 2020) ...

 

Debunking the False Claim That COVID Death Counts Are ...

www.scientificamerican.com › article › debunking-the-...

Oct 20, 2020 — Scientific American is the essential guide to the most awe-inspiring advances in science and technology, explaining how they change our ...

 

And Im not 'solely' relying on excess deaths, but you do need to check claims against excess deaths to see if they add up. The example of automotive deaths......or suicides, or overdoses can be factored in, but you're assuming insane fluctuations. And I might add, the excessive deaths from the past year, including the COVID deaths, have plenty of room to factor these 'side effects' into the equation, yet, most health experts still believe COVID deaths are being under-counted. I can't seem to find it now but there was a JAMA study that factored in deaths of despair as a result of COVID overdoses, suicides, etc. at an increase of something like 50% over the mean and there were still more excess deaths than can be accounted for. (I'll keep on looking for this).

And there are just as many claims of under-reported deaths as there are over-reported deaths. Weren't you the one pointing out that Cuomo did this? That was thousands of under-reported deaths in one instance.  Who knows if they cancel each other out, but you can't assume all misreporting fall on the over-reporting side of the argument either.  

All that said, over-reportings, under-reportings and general sloppy recordings of such things is exactly why health experts rely on on excessive deaths figures. It's a back up....it's a way of asking: do these numbers add up? 

 

 

Lets try this... What can we agree on?

The CDC changed its procedures 

The CDC did not follow proper procedures in doing so

Not all Covid cases have been counted

Other Covid cases were counted multiple times

There were deaths attributed to Covid for patients that were either not confirmed Covid positive and/ or where Covid may have been present but was not a primary cause of death.

I don't see where any of these are even debatable. In agreement so far?

Lastly, try comparing the results of your Google searches to the results of another search engine on any controversial subject. Google (just like Politifact) has been proven to have a bias (and their own employees have admitted as much) so it is no wonder you are coming to the conclusions you are.

Were the NC officials wrong to report they overcounted cases by 200,000? https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/north-carolina/articles/2020-08-12/nc-reporting-error-fuels-200-000-covid-testing-overcount

The Colorado Governor (a Democrat) overcounted 12,000 Covid deaths- https://www.denverpost.com/2020/05/15/colorado-covid-coronavirus-counting-deaths-fatalities/ 

The CDC director admitted to Congress that hospitals have an incentive to falsely count Covid deaths.  

 

I just don't see how you can say cases and deaths have not been over reported given just the few examples I provided.  If you want to say a greater magnitude were under reported resulting in a net under counting, that is a different argument. 

[HoosierFaithful]

This is good news:

but it puts into stark view what was probably already true even before the additional doses: our problem is very much about the organizational capacity to administer the doses, not as much acquiring them.  

It looks like we've seen steady, continual growth of vaccines given per day.  I believe I saw a number of 3m/day as the ultimate goal and we've gone from 1m to 1.6m, so we're making progress... but I'd sure love if it sped up.  We could also hit a blip soon if we run out of willing vaccine participants.  The last number I saw, and with some quick googling looks like it is probably accurate, is that 33% of the population are skeptical of the vaccine.  That's 100m people. 

[Lostin76]

13 hours ago, HoosierFaithful said:

This is good news:

but it puts into stark view what was probably already true even before the additional doses: our problem is very much about the organizational capacity to administer the doses, not as much acquiring them.  

It looks like we've seen steady, continual growth of vaccines given per day.  I believe I saw a number of 3m/day as the ultimate goal and we've gone from 1m to 1.6m, so we're making progress... but I'd sure love if it sped up.  We could also hit a blip soon if we run out of willing vaccine participants.  The last number I saw, and with some quick googling looks like it is probably accurate, is that 33% of the population are skeptical of the vaccine.  That's 100m people. 

This is huge news and shows just how much the US can do if they put their minds and good people behind it.