“The evidence is clear! With the original strain vaccinated people have little risk so we don’t need any public health policy! CDC should remove the recommendation already, they can always add it back as needed!”
The same people later: “They removed the guidance already! LMFAO they can’t backtrack based on new data! Make up their minds! Woke idiots! NO FAUCI OUCHIE for me! We don’t know the long term effects of vaccines!”
CDC also recommending masks for all kids in schools.
Right. Must be the woke left just trying to control people.
Oh right. Trump’s surgeon General was just a woke lefty nut. Anyone with a relevant degree or experience is a woke leftie by definition.
Just got the email from our preschool. The policy for the start of the school year as of right now is masks for all kids 5 and over. Now I have to see if my wife is interested in seeing if we can get our son exempted. What a f****n joke.
Playing with statistics. I would venture to say that the Democrats are over represented in the atheist group.
“No religion” <> atheist in their survey definitions.
The group (which includes more than atheists) also skews younger and thus was not eligible as early. Eligibility only started opening up in April and May, and over a ~month to be fully vaccinated after the first shot…
I suspect that the only religious group on that list you can draw clear political conclusions about would be that “evangelical protestants” are generally right-leaning.
Our county school board voted yesterday to make masks optional in schools (students and staff). It was a unanimous vote, so I hope the new CDC guidance, that came out almost immediately after, will not prompt this to change.
When you say an email from preschool, about kids 5 and older - do you mean there will be different requirements within a class, when some students have turned 5 while others are still 4? I thought, for the most part, a 5-and-up rule wouldnt be all that applicable to preschools.
Our chosen preschool, while private and parochial, is also accredited through the National Accreditation Commission for Early Care and Education Programs. To them, that means they MUST follow “best practice” guidelines. I plan on emailing the director to clarify if they will still follow the State Dept of Ed even if our local school board votes to make masks optional for 5 year old elementary school students (I don’t think that decision has been made yet). I can see them going with the more lax approach only if enough parents make a stink.
My understanding is, last year they followed the age guideline and didn’t separate it by class. After a child had their 5th birthday, that child had to wear a mask. So there were likely some kids in my son’s class that started wearing a mask in the later half of the school year.
I really dont know what to think about that - when little Suzie has to start wearing a mask mid-year, do you sell it as her becoming a big girl with special priviledges while her classmates are still little babies? Or do you sell it as the younger kids are still safe but little Suzie is now a danger to everyone? 
I’d still disagree with it, but at least go ahead and say starting with kindergarten students should wear masks, while preschool does not. Going strictly by an arbitrary age is just plain dumb.
I think it’s more of what age you can practically get the kids to do it, more than anything.
Sure. But it’s not like a switch flips on your 5th birthday, suddenly making you capable of wearing a mask. Whatever the standard, it should be applied by the class, not individually.
More importantly, it should be applied when the cost benefit analysis says it should. There is negligible transmission rate from elementary school aged kids and younger, they are essentially at zero risk of dying (unless they have health issues that make a normal cold also life threatening), and there are significant and measurable NEGATIVE effects to wearing them for hours at a time. Many schools even require kids to wear them outdoors during recess.
I would be in favor of a 6th grade and up (possibly 5th and up) if there were some hard data on those kids acting as community transmission vectors (which I haven’t seen and the media sure hasn’t presented). But 3nd grade and below, where kids are still very much developing the most basic speech, reading, and interpersonal communication skills, you need to show me some SERIOUS data that those kids are regular super spreaders before I’ll be convinced they need to mask in school.
Here’s the WSJ calling out the FDA on refusing to use ivermectin in light of the evidence.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/fda-ivermectin-covid-19-coronavirus-masks-anti-science-11627482393
Backup link
Some 70 clinical trials are evaluating the use of ivermectin for treating Covid-19. The statistically significant evidence suggests that it is safe and works for both treating and preventing the disease.
In 115 patients with Covid-19 who received a single dose of ivermectin, none developed pneumonia or cardiovascular complications, while 11.4% of those in the control group did. Fewer ivermectin patients developed respiratory distress (2.6% vs. 15.8%); fewer required oxygen (9.6% vs. 45.9%); fewer required antibiotics (15.7% vs. 60.2%); and fewer entered intensive care (0.1% vs. 8.3%). Ivermectin-treated patients tested negative faster, in four days instead of 15, and stayed in the hospital nine days on average instead of 15. Ivermectin patients experienced 13.3% mortality compared with 24.5% in the control group.
Moreover, the drug can help prevent Covid-19. One 2020 article in Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications looked at what happened after the drug was given to family members of confirmed Covid-19 patients. Less than 8% became infected, versus 58.4% of those untreated. Among 200 healthcare workers and others at high risk of exposure, only 2% of those given ivermectin developed Covid-19. But 10% of the control group did.
Despite the FDA’s claims, ivermectin is safe at approved doses. Out of four billion doses administered since 1998, there have been only 28 cases of serious neurological adverse events, according to an article published this year in the American Journal of Therapeutics. The same study found that ivermectin has been used safely in pregnant women, children and infants.
If the FDA were driven by science and evidence, it would give an emergency-use authorization for ivermectin for Covid-19. Instead, the FDA asserts without evidence that ivermectin is dangerous. At the bottom of the FDA’s warning against ivermectin is this statement: “Meanwhile, effective ways to limit the spread of COVID-19 continue to be to wear your mask, stay at least 6 feet from others who don’t live with you, wash hands frequently, and avoid crowds.” Is this based on the kinds of double-blind studies that the FDA requires for drug approvals? No.
Profile of the (un)vaccinated as of last week.
MSM headlines to the contrary, I’m betting most of those unvaccinated aren’t Trump voters. Maybe all the racial disparities are due to those vaccine places asking for ID? 
Note: The media often chooses to lump asians in with whites. Had they done that here, the white percentage would diverge more and make hispanics and blacks look even more reluctant to get vaccinated. I would bet it was a conscious decision to separate asians from whites specifically to avoid that.
Same source – shows noticeable difference between vaccination rates in counties that voted Biden vs Trump
EDIT - that said – an interesting look at the data from another direction shows a stronger correlation with per-capita income and vaccination rates, rather than any political affiliation.
Also - snark aside, why would it be any surprise, at all, that black people have the lowest vaccination rates in this case? There is a lot of really horrible history there leading to a well deserved loss of trust.
Thanks for the additional breakdowns. Looks like the partisan gap is about the same as the non-Asian minority racial gap, give or take, at 5-10% depending on when and where.
Yeah, that’s a much much bigger factor. I’ve long been of the view that when someone proposes a racial disparity in need of some urgent policy solution, the first step should be to run the same analysis and replace black/white with poor/rich on an income basis and see if the effect is still there. It often is, and is often bigger/stronger as it is in this vaccination rate case, showing that racial differences are often incidental correlates with an underlying wealth or income factor.
LOL, I didn’t realize people were still pushing this garbage reasoning like it explains the whole disparity.
