Thought I would share since this interview made my day.

4 hours ago, StrangeSox said:

normal country

 

 

All the news about the vaccine has been great, but all this hostility and anger toward mask wearing is not good at all. It doesn't help that Trump is so anti-mask, and goes around saying the vaccine is an immediate cure. That is not true. The virus is still going to spread and it will be worse if the public doesn't want to take pre-cautions. As usual, there is no leadership coming from the White House. In fact, just the opposite.

 

2 hours ago, NWINFan said:

All the news about the vaccine has been great, but all this hostility and anger toward mask wearing is not good at all. It doesn't help that Trump is so anti-mask, and goes around saying the vaccine is an immediate cure. That is not true. The virus is still going to spread and it will be worse if the public doesn't want to take pre-cautions. As usual, there is no leadership coming from the White House. In fact, just the opposite.

And Biden isn't going to change that. His supporters were generally already wearing a mask the Trumpers will continue to not 

12 hours ago, Texsox said:

And Biden isn't going to change that. His supporters were generally already wearing a mask the Trumpers will continue to not 

I don't know how any president affects personal behavior, but it will be good not to have misinformation and ignorance coming out of the White House. Also, if I were Biden, I wouldn't occupy the White House or have my staff work there until it is cleaned from top to bottom. That would show this Trump-type idiocy will not continue. At the very least, it would show that people should not be willing to spread this disease just because they want to live in denial.

It looks like Pfizer's effectiveness at first dose is pretty good at 80-85%.

If J&J ends up lower than that with a single dose, I wonder if there isn't pressure to just make Pfizer a one-dose vaccine to cover more people.

The difference between 80% effective and 95% effective is enormous, though. Especially if there's any sterilizing effects that'll actually halt transmission chains.

 

 

21 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

 

And not one word from POTUS.

33 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

And not one word from POTUS.

You made that sound like a bad thing. 

4 hours ago, StrangeSox said:

The difference between 80% effective and 95% effective is enormous, though. Especially if there's any sterilizing effects that'll actually halt transmission chains.

Unfortunately we don't have unlimited quantities so there are some basic trade-offs one whether we'd want a larger portion waiting until q3 to get any vaccine, or if now any vaccine under 95% is not good enough and isn't allowed.

9 hours ago, bmags said:

It looks like Pfizer's effectiveness at first dose is pretty good at 80-85%.

If J&J ends up lower than that with a single dose, I wonder if there isn't pressure to just make Pfizer a one-dose vaccine to cover more people.

Where did you see that? 

Quote

The document describes the efficacy of Pfizer's vaccine in the time between the first and second dose as 52.4%, but the document notes that "the efficacy observed after Dose 1 and before Dose 2, from a post-hoc analysis, cannot support a conclusion on the efficacy of a single dose of the vaccine, because the time of observation is limited by the fact that most of the participants received a second dose after three weeks."

https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/coronavirus-pandemic-12-08-20-intl/h_adca135a0dc79384b4b7847e03bc37b3

3 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

 

 

Two to three months of more than three thousand people dying every single day from COVID.

 

I'm glad my wife's district has again pushed back the start of in person school.

 

Three thousand more dead every day from now until st patrick's day

Open'r up

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 11, 20205 yr by StrangeSox

Quote

What's True

Some daily death totals from COVID-19, including in December 2020, have been remarkably high by historical standards. Several days have seen more deaths recorded from COVID-19 than resulted from the attacks on Pearl Harbor, and a few days have come close to reaching the number of fatalities that resulted from the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

What's False

The ranking in the meme omits certain natural disasters whose death tolls were greater than the daily totals incurred from COVID-19. And at the peak of the 1918 influenza pandemic, daily death totals, if they were formally recorded, would have exceeded the daily death totals resulting from COVID-19 in 2020.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/deadliest-days-usa-history/

10 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/deadliest-days-usa-history/

Something to keep in mind as well is population totals. More people died each day from Spanish flu and there were far less people available for that disease to kill. The Galveston hurricane killed 8,000, but how many people live in Galveston today? 100,000? How many less was it back then?

This isn't to make light of this, 3,000 a day is still God awful, but it's just worth keeping in mind for comparison's sake.

46 minutes ago, Danny Dravot said:

Something to keep in mind as well is population totals. More people died each day from Spanish flu and there were far less people available for that disease to kill. The Galveston hurricane killed 8,000, but how many people live in Galveston today? 100,000? How many less was it back then?

This isn't to make light of this, 3,000 a day is still God awful, but it's just worth keeping in mind for comparison's sake.

Galveston's population today is ~50,000, and it was about 40,000 at the time of the storm. At the time, Houston basically didn't exist and Galveston was sort of the port city in that area, and it probably would have continued developing into something closer to Miami if it wasn't for the storm - densest at the coast and growing inland. Once the storm leveled the city, people moved inwards to Houston, and that became the governing seat of the area. 

56 minutes ago, Danny Dravot said:

Something to keep in mind as well is population totals. More people died each day from Spanish flu and there were far less people available for that disease to kill. The Galveston hurricane killed 8,000, but how many people live in Galveston today? 100,000? How many less was it back then?

This isn't to make light of this, 3,000 a day is still God awful, but it's just worth keeping in mind for comparison's sake.

Read Isaacs Storm if you want something interesting about the 1900 hurricane. 

1 hour ago, Balta1701 said:

Galveston's population today is ~50,000, and it was about 40,000 at the time of the storm. At the time, Houston basically didn't exist and Galveston was sort of the port city in that area, and it probably would have continued developing into something closer to Miami if it wasn't for the storm - densest at the coast and growing inland. Once the storm leveled the city, people moved inwards to Houston, and that became the governing seat of the area. 

Thanks. Didn’t know how much the hurricane changed the overall course of the city. Either way, kinda validates my point that the hurricane killed 20% of the population.

SS, appreciate it. I’ll check it out (my phone sucks at formatting).

1 hour ago, southsider2k5 said:

Read Isaacs Storm if you want something interesting about the 1900 hurricane.

Edited December 11, 20205 yr by Danny Dravot

Guys if you look at the image I posted, it says "major deadly events" and isn't a numbered list. The snopes article applies more to the tweets they reference than what's going on in that picture.

 

 

 

 

Why would you do this

 

 

 

 

6 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

Galveston's population today is ~50,000, and it was about 40,000 at the time of the storm. At the time, Houston basically didn't exist and Galveston was sort of the port city in that area, and it probably would have continued developing into something closer to Miami if it wasn't for the storm - densest at the coast and growing inland. Once the storm leveled the city, people moved inwards to Houston, and that became the governing seat of the area. 

Apropos of nothing, the story in Southern Illinois is that Metropolis had a somewhat similar thing happen.  When the Chicago fire went down, Metropolis sent aid north to Chicago to help repair.  This favor was never returned,  Chicago experienced a boom, Metropolis never really recovered from it and Chicago went on to become the city we know now.   
 

I have no idea how valid the story is,  but they all know it and talk about it as if it is true.  

 

20 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

 

Also of note, generally speaking, Democrats come from denser populated areas than Republicans.