I didn’t decide – the entire world of medical experts decided, I simply chose to believe them. It’s not a difficult choice.
No, I do take responsibility for myself by following best advice. But I don’t have much choice when it comes to getting food and other essentials, so I do expect others to follow the same expert advice when they go out to get food and essentials.
What you’re saying is that a victim of a fatal car accident caused by a drunk driver was not taking responsibility for themselves by getting run into by a drunk driver. It’s asinine.
Because my choices are in line with expert advice, and theirs is not. You keep talking about society, but forgetting that society sets the rules. We normally put people who don’t follow the rules in jail, and psychos into psych wards, to protect the rest of society.
When you get in your car, you are accepting the risk that you may be killed in an accident. Driving down the road, the risk to you is having an accident - and any car you meet could be the one that kills you. The driver being sober doesnt make you any less dead.
Drunk driving is illegal because drunks cause accidents. Just like people who are infected should stay home, because they cause spread. But you are on the other side of the equation - every person you come in contact with poses the same risk to you, because they’re either infectious or they arent. You dont get less infected if that infectious person has been following all the guidelines.
You’ve accepted the risk, now want everyone else to adjust to maximize the odds that your gamble works out. If you dont like the odds, make a different decision.
They are getting special treatment and they say they are.
“The treatments — a monoclonal antibody developed by Eli Lilly and a cocktail of two monoclonal antibodies developed by Regeneron — won emergency use authorization, or an E.U.A., from the Food and Drug Administration last month for outpatients with “mild to moderate” disease who are at high risk for progressing to severe disease or for being hospitalized.”
I guess the bigger question is does the expert advise help? I haven’t verified these, but there are lots of graphs out there of places implementing mask laws and various business closures vs places that don’t and the covid is pretty bad all around regardless. I mean, hard lockdowns work and cut cases a lot, but the costs are really bad, and it’s quite unclear they’re worth it.
You can play with the CDC chart data here to compare states.
I guess the big question is whether these stricter measures just delayed the cases rather than preventing them. For example TX and FL had a bigger peak vs CA earlier, but now CA is doing worse quite possibly due to many people in FL having already gotten it (they already had 5-10% estimate antibody rates back in May).
Texas added 70 deaths per 100k while CA added 35 since Mid-July. Despite starting off with twice as much virus earlier in the year.
The freezer trucks we are using as morgues in the state aren’t a hoax.
Texas also has a mask mandate, despite other policies that are poor. So you might want to pick one of the more Trumpian dystopic states instead if you’re claiming restrictions/mitigations are bad. Problem is there might not be one that has any cities…
Yes, currently but the cases are at least 1.5x worse in CA now so things are getting worse there. I guess we’ll see. I didn’t try to adjust demographics to see what you’d expect or if they should have, for example, comparable death rates all else being equal.
I guess the point to address the interventions is whether they are helping more or less vs places they are not used or used less. I mean if CA’s mask laws came in back in June, why are things worse now there than places like FL where people clearly don’t care?
CA has run almost twice as many tests per capita… undertesting skews case numbers low (and positivity rate high).
Because the premise is again false? FL’s deaths somewhat tracked with CA until July, after which FL’s has exploded and also settled around twice the rate. Why some people don’t care and like to parrot false propaganda that mitigation doesn’t have an effect is a different question.
Cases alone doesn’t seem like a great comparison. Different states intentionally track them differently, as well as testing different amounts over time due to availability or motivation.
None of the US states are like some other places in the world where positivity rates are below 1% and cases detected do directly correlate with actual numbers of infections. Deaths are therefore more consistent for historical comparison. (Despite the lag in new data).
Yes, you do – if you come in contact with an infected person who wears a mask and washes their hands, you’re less likely to catch it from them, or even if you do get something it’ll be less severe (less viral load) than if you come in contact with an infected person who does not wear a mask, does not wash their hands, and does not keep their distance.
I mean, that’s the whole point of the mask+wash hands+distance mandates. Implemented pretty much everywhere. You may be suggesting that they’re not based in science or fact and are just mass hysteria, and that’s, like, your opinion, man.
Is this going to be approved?
Yes.
Why hasnt it been? It’s been 3 weeks.
Um, well, we want to make sure we are following the right process.
Then get it done. Today. You knew this was coming for months, so if you arent prepared with the right process you need to resign so someone who is prepared can get this done.
Would that really be inappropriate meddling?
Besides, isnt any “undermining the confidence in the FDA” actually being done by this article? There is no news being reported, they’re pimping a baseless rumor about something that might’ve happened, writing about it for no reason but to undermine confidence in the FDA. It’s propaganda they have no proof of, the article itself admits that it’s representation of the call is disputed by those who were actually on the call.
Right. No, science doesn’t work that way. They can’t review the data until it was provided. FDA doesn’t just take private company’s word for it that “is all good”. UK does not have an equivalent respected organization.
“We’re expecting to get data six months from now. So, let’s just review it ahead of receiving it!”
Dude, quit being so obtuse. It was a hypothetical example. They’ve had everything for 3 weeks. Maybe there’s a reason for it to take 3 more weeks, maybe theres no reason it has taken the 3 weeks it has. We simply dont know. And this article doesnt know, either. Again, the report’s entire premise about this call is disputed by those who were actually on the call. But dont let the lack of facts stop you from jumping to conclusions.
This “report” was put out to invoke exactly that anti-Trump response you provided. It literally serves no other purpose whatsoever but to undermine confidence in any FDA decision.
Do you honestly have no concept of preparing for something that you know is forthcoming? They can be ready to evaluate the data before the data is ready, so they can start as soon as it’s submitted.
Reminder for those of you who aren’t taking Vit D supplements. Roundup of many studies and trials nearly all of which show positive outcomes and/or correlations between higher Vit D levels and good covid outcomes.
The doctor presenting was taking 2000 IUs and in sunny SoCal and still found his levels were lower than he wanted, so he’s now taking 5000 IUs daily.
