Misc.

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Wednesday, July 28. 2021

CDC: Put the Masks Back On, Fully Vaccinated People!

The Inmates Are Running the Asylum

LA Times: Maybe we shouldn't follow California's example on electric cars

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 07:08 | Comments (32) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Re: LA Times: Maybe we shouldn't follow California's example on electric cars

Why is mining any more sustainable than drilling for oil (but maybe “sustainable” doesn’t mean what it means). Asking for a friend.

Here’s an issue few seem to address: I was talking to a buddy who works for a power company. He said the current electrical infrastructure would require massive updates to take care of a significant number of new electric cars. Does anybody believe that Dame Pelosi has electric grid updates in her “Infrastructure” bill?

#1 mudbug on 2021-07-28 10:06 (Reply)

Is there any infrastructure in the infrastructure bill?

I think Musk and Toyota both have warned about the electrical supply problem. Electric cars might be a solution, but we need something better than batteries for power.

#1.1 B. Hammer on 2021-07-28 10:38 (Reply)

mudbug: Does anybody believe that Dame Pelosi has electric grid updates in her “Infrastructure” bill?

The America Jobs Plan has $100 billion for upgrading and building out the nation's aging and regionally siloed electric transmission system. Smart transmission would allow for better integration of green energy, while providing hundreds of thousands of jobs.

B. Hammer: Is there any infrastructure in the infrastructure bill?

The bill has $621 billion for infrastructure, including $115 to modernize bridges, highways, roads, and main streets that are in most critical need of repair; $85 billion to modernize existing transit; $80 billion for deferred maintenance on rail; $25 billion for air and sea ports; $50 billion for infrastructure resilience (losses over the last year cost $100 billion); $45 billion to replace lead pipes; $56 billion for clean water; $100 billion for digital infrastructure, including broadband for rural America.

#1.2 Zachriel on 2021-07-28 11:09 (Reply)

Z: The America Jobs Plan has $100 billion for upgrading and building out the nation's aging and regionally siloed electric transmission system. Smart transmission would allow for better integration of green energy, while providing hundreds of thousands of jobs.

First of all, it's not a question of integration with "green energy" (which is intermittent and unpredictable and therefore unpractical), the issue is capacity. Are those jobs different from the "shovel ready" jobs that the Obama regime? Asking for a friend.

#1.2.1 mudbug on 2021-07-28 11:44 (Reply)

mudbug: it's not a question of integration with "green energy" (which is intermittent and unpredictable and therefore unpractical), the issue is capacity.

Of course integration is important. To reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the system has to be more flexible.

mudbug: Are those jobs different from the "shovel ready" jobs that the Obama regime?

Shovels, of course, are of limited value nowadays. You are confusing stimulus, which should be quickly administered, with infrastructure, which is something that takes years to implement, but has long term economic advantages.

(The best time for the U.S. to have invested in infrastructure was ten years ago, when there is significant slack in the economy, and the U.S. would now be realizing the benefit during the current expansion. But it was more important to Republicans to own the "libtards"—just like it is today. America's competitors, notably China, invested.)

#1.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2021-07-28 13:39 (Reply)

Re: CDC

In January, the CDC told labs to lower the number of cycles for PCR tests because it was giving too many false positive results (so we didn’t really have as many Wuhan flu cases and deaths as we thought?). Was it yesterday that the CDC told labs to stop using PCR tests altogether because it couldn’t tell the difference between the Wuhan flu and a garden variety flu? So we probably had still fewer cases and deaths. But we have to double our efforts to finally rid ourselves of this scourge. Vaccines for which we have no long term data AND masks (and maybe another lockdown). Something this stupid could only be run by politicians.

#2 mudbug on 2021-07-28 10:23 (Reply)

I forgot… Now the CDC tells us that vaccinated people can spread Wuhan flu. It’s time for unvaccinated people to start protesting the vaccines because they pose a danger to them.

#2.1 mudbug on 2021-07-28 10:28 (Reply)

mudbug: Was it yesterday that the CDC told labs to stop using PCR tests altogether because it couldn’t tell the difference between the Wuhan flu and a garden variety flu?

No.

The CDC has not stopped the use of PCR tests. SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID, is a coronavirus. The influenza virus is a completely different virus. What the CDC is proposing is the use of a single test that tests for both viruses. This will be a more efficient use of resources as the flu season approaches. In the last flu season, only 0.2% of tests for influenza were positive.

mudbug: So we probably had still fewer cases and deaths.

The number of excess deaths supports the death count. Life expectancy dropped by over a year in the U.S.

mudbug: Now the CDC tells us that vaccinated people can spread Wuhan flu.

That's not new. Testing has shown the vaccines were 94% effective at preventing infection. That means 6% would still get infected. However, those who are vaccinated who do get infected would have milder symptoms and be much less likely to require hospitalization. Since then, new variants have reduced the effectiveness of vaccines somewhat.

Children still act as a reservoir, so even if adults were 100% vaccinated, some adults would still become infected, though with much reduced severity. The U.S. is far from 100% for adults, though.

#2.2 Zachriel on 2021-07-28 11:29 (Reply)

CDC: In preparation for this change, CDC recommends clinical laboratories and testing sites that have been using the CDC 2019-nCoV RT-PCR assay select and begin their transition to another FDA-authorized COVID-19 test. CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses. (https://archive.ph/AkmRA

Life expectancy and excess deaths count does not substantiate the accuracy of the CDC Wuhan flu death count. That doesn't take into account the people who supposedly died from Wuhan flu but actually died from unrelated causes like gunshots (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/related-to-obvious-other-causes-gunshot-victims-included-in-washington-coronavirus-death-tally) or motorcycle accident (https://cbs12.com/news/local/man-who-died-in-motorcycle-crash-counted-as-covid-19-death-in-florida-report). It also does not take into account the number of people who died from lockdown related causes like suicides and drug overdoses.

In Australia and England, large percentages (maybe most) new hospitalizations are for vaccinated people. https://www.newsbreak.com/news/2321588872036/sydney-australia-all-new-covid-hospitalizations-involve-vaccinated-individuals-except-one and https://www.westernjournal.com/uk-60-people-admitted-hospital-covid-fully-vaccinated/

About kids transmitting Wuhan flu: https://www.healthline.com/health-news/study-finds-kids-under-10-unlikely-to-spread-coronavirus-at-school

#2.2.1 mudbug on 2021-07-28 12:13 (Reply)

mudbug: CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses.

That's right. Instead of having to take two tests, it will only take one.

mudbug: That doesn't take into account the people who supposedly died from Wuhan flu but actually died from unrelated causes like gunshots

There are very few that were miscategorized, not enough to affect the count significantly, and most of those have been corrected. Also, that doesn't explain why the numbers from two very different sources of data match.

mudbug: In Australia and England, large percentages (maybe most) new hospitalizations are for vaccinated people.

Of course. As vaccinations rise, the number of infections drop, but the percentage of those infected who have been vaccinated will rise. That's called math. Consider if 100% of all adults are vaccinated. Children and contact with the outside world still represent a reservoir of infection, and because the vaccine is not perfect, some adults will become infected—and 100% of them will be vaccinated! Meanwhile, the U.S. is nowhere near 100%.

#2.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2021-07-28 13:44 (Reply)

"There are very few that were miscategorized, not enough to affect the count significantly, and most of those have been corrected."

Very few? 25% "mischaracterized" in one county in California. Only corrected a few weeks ago, and barely reported on outside conservative media, but to MSN and Mediaite's credit here it is.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/california-county-cuts-its-covid-death-toll-by-25-after-adjusting-reporting-criteria/ar-AAKLE7r

I'm sure you'll find some way to deflect or make it about the language used.

#2.2.1.1.1 Stephen Kudro on 2021-07-28 14:49 (Reply)

Stephen Kudro: Very few? 25% "mischaracterized" in one county in California.

The change brought Santa Clara County into line with California's data methodology. So? Again, we have two independent measures with about the same result. Why are the two measures consistent?

Stephen Kudro: I'm sure you'll find some way to deflect or make it about the language used.

No. It's about the data.

#2.2.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2021-07-28 15:28 (Reply)

"No. It's about the data."

Right. It's about the data--it's about revising what people have said for a year now is bad data, which has been used to set policy for months, something you claim is not happening. Alameda county revised their numbers by a similar figure a month or so earlier.

You're deflecting by making this about something it's not.

#2.2.1.1.1.1.1 Stephen Kudro on 2021-07-28 15:43 (Reply)

Stephen Kudro: Alameda county revised their numbers by a similar figure a month or so earlier.

That's right. If we reduce the national count by 22%, that would be 500,000 dead. Is that your point?

#2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2021-07-28 15:50 (Reply)

Is it your point that 22% is "very few"?

If the number nationwide is even a third of that it's a significant overstatement in real numbers, actual dead people.

My real point is that you are being utterly dishonest and won't own up to the fact that you made a misleading claim.

#2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Stephen Kudro on 2021-07-28 16:18 (Reply)

Stephen Kudro: Is it your point that 22% is "very few"?

There were about 1000 miscounted out of a total of {checks watch} 627,660. There may be other adjustments as the data continues to be analyzed. That's how science works.

There is always going to be some degree of uncertainty in all empirical observations. There is no evidence that the mortality count is off by that much, and the count is supported by the independent determination of excess deaths. We see the same pattern in other countries, and the same pattern in subsets of the data. In other words, an estimate of 627,000 is much more likely to be true than an estimate comparable to the mortality of the seasonal flu.

Stephen Kudro: won't own up to the fact that you made a misleading claim.

What claim is that?

#2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2021-07-28 16:30 (Reply)

"There were about 1000 miscounted out of a total of {checks watch} 627,660. There may be other adjustments as the data continues to be analyzed. That's how science works."

If I'm making sense of your obfuscatory blather, that's just two counties. More dishonesty, when you know damned well it'll turn out to be more than that. Science is NOT served buy the use of known garbage data that a high school science student would reject, like counting a death as caused by a disease when it clearly wasn't. Only politics is served by that, not science.

"There is always going to be some degree of uncertainty in all empirical observations."

Compounded by the use of known bad data.

"What claim is that?"

Seriously? Your claim that "very few" were mischaracterized. But maybe you're right and I'm wrong to be worried about a few thousand dead people here and there. I mean, we have policy to make, right?

For all your pretense at sophistication, you seem to be unaware of The First Rule of Holes.

#2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Stephen Kudro on 2021-07-28 16:57 (Reply)

Stephen Kudro: that's just two counties.

Sure. They didn't follow the protocol, and had to update their count. There is also the possibility of under counts, especially early in the pandemic before testing was available, and even now, if someone dies home and alone.

Stephen Kudro: you know damned well it'll turn out to be more than that.

We just said that. You even quoted it.

Stephen Kudro: Seriously? Your claim that "very few" were mischaracterized.

You pointed to an error of 0.14%.

Stephen Kudro: I mean, we have policy to make, right?

You haven't explained why an error of 0.14% would make a difference to policy, nor have you conjectured as to what the actual mortality count should be. Again, we have two independent measures giving much the same result.

The actual count is almost certainly wrong. However, an estimate of 627,000 is much more likely to be closer to the true number than an estimate comparable to the mortality of the seasonal flu. It's The Relativity of Wrong.

#2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2021-07-28 17:24 (Reply)

"an error of 0.14%"

We're talking about an error of 22-25%. Stop trying to change the terms of the debate. It's deeply dishonest.

#2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Stephen Kudro on 2021-07-28 18:20 (Reply)

Stephen Kudro: We're talking about an error of 22-25%.

You’ve noted a 0.14% difference in the national rate, provided no evidence of a wider problem, have not accounted for under counts, nor addressed the independent evidence from excess deaths. You even ignored The Relativity of Wrong.

There is an inevitable margin of error. So?

#2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2021-07-28 20:09 (Reply)

"So?" Wow. It's despicable that you play these sorts of rhetorical games with thousands of lives. Just shameless. Nauseating. Little wonder few here treat with you.

Sleep well, if you can. I'm done.

#2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Stephen Kudro on 2021-07-28 20:20 (Reply)

Stephen Kudro: It's despicable that you play these sorts of rhetorical games with thousands of lives.

Z: It's estimated that 100 million lives were lost in the Black Death.
S: You forgot little Peter! It was a 100 million and one! It's despicable that you play these sorts of rhetorical games!

#2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2021-07-29 07:43 (Reply)

Z: There are very few that were miscategorized, not enough to affect the count significantly, and most of those have been corrected. Also, that doesn't explain why the numbers from two very different sources of data match.

And how do you know that? The first CDC instructions were to declare a death from anybody who tested positive for Wuhan flu (at the high PCR cycle level) to be counted as a Wuhan flu death regardless of their circumstances. This principle was also used in the definition of a "case." Prior to this, a case was someone who had symptoms, but now, symptoms are not necessary.

Sydney, Australia is not at 100% vaccinated either but there are almost no unvaccinated people in the hospital. Here's some more math (mixed in with a little medicine). If most of the people are vaccinated (something that is supposed to reduce their likelihood of catching the Wuhan flu, you would expect that the vast majority of the people in the hospital would be unvaccinated (since they are at higher risk) and very few would be vaccinated (since they are at reduced risk). Taking Australia as an example, only 44% in New South Wales have been vaccinated (https://www.covid19data.com.au/vaccines) yet most of the people in the hospital in Sydney are vaccinated.

#2.2.1.1.2 mudbug on 2021-07-28 15:02 (Reply)

mudbug: The first CDC instructions were to declare a death from anybody who tested positive for Wuhan flu

That is incorrect. The instructions were that COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death. Testing was either non-existent or hard to obtain. Diagnosis was done the old-fashioned way. However, after testing became available, it was clear that COVID-19 was hospitalizing and killing a lot of people.

mudbug: Prior to this, a case was someone who had symptoms, but now, symptoms are not necessary.

That's right. With testing, someone doesn't have to show symptoms to be counted as a case. However, we know that when cases increase, hospitalization and deaths follow a few weeks later.

mudbug: Sydney, Australia is not at 100% vaccinated either but there are almost no unvaccinated people in the hospital.

Please provide your data. The outbreak started with an unmasked, unvaccinated airport driver.

#2.2.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2021-07-28 15:48 (Reply)

"As vaccinations rise, the number of infections drop, but the percentage of those infected who have been vaccinated will rise. That's called math."

That's called vaccine failure.

I have to admit, I thought it would be early next year when the Covid virus had mutated to the point where the vaccines began to fail. But here we are.

#2.2.1.1.3 jm01 on 2021-07-29 11:52 (Reply)

jm01: That's called vaccine failure.

If 100% of adults are vaccinated, and the vaccine is 95% effective, would any adults become infected? Of the adults who become infected, what percentage would be vaccinated?

#2.2.1.1.3.1 Zachriel on 2021-07-29 12:14 (Reply)

RE: COVID "EXPERTS" (CDC, WHO, Fauxi, Biden & his admin, and other officials with or without a medical degree who are in administrative rolls and don't actually treat patients,

“I thought to myself: I am wiser than this man; neither of us probably knows anything that is really good, but he thinks he has knowledge, when he has not, while I, having no knowledge, do not think I have.”
― Plato, Apology

COVID is a black box. Be wary of those who claim to know much. To quote a famous philosopher, "They may know a lot of shit, but they don't know shit."

#3 mike on 2021-07-28 11:01 (Reply)

mike: RE: COVID "EXPERTS"

Fauci's medical achievements
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Fauci#Medical_achievements

mike: I thought to myself: I am wiser than this man

Oh, did you develop therapies for formerly fatal diseases? Kudos!

#3.1 Zachriel on 2021-07-28 16:00 (Reply)

But! But... It is obvious to anyone but a fool that Fauci is both playing politics and lying through his teeth. Pelosi has told everyone on the left/communists that they need this "crisis' to continue so they can finish destroying America. So Fauci continues to lie.

The masks don't work. almost everyone who died from covid followed the mask procedures and still we have over half a million dead. What the masks do is keep is scared and at each others throat and that is what the left/Marxists want. Divide and conquer.

Don't be a useful idiot!!!

#3.1.1 Anon on 2021-07-28 18:26 (Reply)

Anon: But! But...

The question was Fauci’s expertise—which is what we addressed. There’s a reason he is such a respected scientist.

#3.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2021-07-28 20:12 (Reply)

Getting closer to the inevitable:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/07/breaking-biden-doj-declares-covid-19-vaccine-mandates-legal/

#4 Maniac on 2021-07-28 11:27 (Reply)

https://off-guardian.org/wp-content/medialibrary/21-memes-8.jpg?x51581

#5 bilejones on 2021-07-29 20:29 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Wednesday, July 28. 2021

Misc.