Coronavirus COVID-19

[JohnStOnge]

All other things aside, the author shows their own ignorance in making this statement:



I don't know what it is going to take to make so many of the anti-mask people understand that the primary purpose of wearing a mask is to protect OTHER people in case you are infected and don't know it.

I think it would have been wise for her to wear a mask for PR purposes, but the current CDC recommendation is this:



CDC defines "up to date" as follows:



i couldn't quickly find something saying Abrahams has been vaccinated and boosted but i did find something saying she's vaccinated and also stuff saying she's involved in outreach efforts to get other Black people vaccinated. If I had to bet I'd bet she's up to date on her vaccinations and is following CDC recommendations in that picture.

Of course, it's easy for an extremely biased entity like Hot Air to take a shot like that and create a quick impression that all of the rational context in the world won't change with the people who are already inclined not to like Democrats.

HotAir is well known to be moderate conservative and anti-Trump.

spin the hypocrisy all you want - those school kids were required to be masked and she flaunted a photo op without a mask

School mask mandates are not following the science and Abrams is a proponent of them. She, like most of the Ctrl-Left, is a hypocrite

Have fun this November


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well i was afraid you'd notice that CDC recommends that all students, staff, and visitors wear masks in schools before i got a chance to correct myself on what CDC recommends.

School mask mandates are following the science. The science does say that universal masking reduces the risk. A school is a unique environment in which you can actually see to it that most everybody wears a mask.

[UNI88]

HotAir is well known to be moderate conservative and anti-Trump.

spin the hypocrisy all you want - those school kids were required to be masked and she flaunted a photo op without a mask

School mask mandates are not following the science and Abrams is a proponent of them. She, like most of the Ctrl-Left, is a hypocrite

Have fun this November

Well i was afraid you'd notice that CDC recommends that all students, staff, and visitors wear masks in schools before i got a chance to correct myself on what CDC recommends.

School mask mandates are following the science. The science does say that universal masking reduces the risk. A school is a unique environment in which you can actually see to it that most everybody except that raging hypocrite Stacy Abrams wears a mask.

FYP

[SeattleGriz]

HotAir is well known to be moderate conservative and anti-Trump.

spin the hypocrisy all you want - those school kids were required to be masked and she flaunted a photo op without a mask

School mask mandates are not following the science and Abrams is a proponent of them. She, like most of the Ctrl-Left, is a hypocrite

Have fun this November


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well i was afraid you'd notice that CDC recommends that all students, staff, and visitors wear masks in schools before i got a chance to correct myself on what CDC recommends.

School mask mandates are following the science. The science does say that universal masking reduces the risk. A school is a unique environment in which you can actually see to it that most everybody wears a mask.

What science? List the study.

[Baldy]

HotAir is well known to be moderate conservative and anti-Trump.

spin the hypocrisy all you want - those school kids were required to be masked and she flaunted a photo op without a mask

School mask mandates are not following the science and Abrams is a proponent of them. She, like most of the Ctrl-Left, is a hypocrite

Have fun this November


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well i was afraid you'd notice that CDC recommends that all students, staff, and visitors wear masks in schools before i got a chance to correct myself on what CDC recommends.

School mask mandates are following the science. The science does say that universal masking reduces the risk. A school is a unique environment in which you can actually see to it that most everybody wears a mask.

No they're not. Masks have minimal, if any effect on the spread of the virus in children. Now you need to balance the two. Study the effects of mandatory mask requirements against the physiological impacts of requiring children to wear masks 8+ hours a day.

[JohnStOnge]

That is an illustration of the problem. You have numerous studies by credible entities saying masking reduces the risk and you go with a graph by somebody calling themselves 'Eric' on Twitter.

Which studies? Can you cite just one?

SG, one thing you can count on is, if i say there are studies to support a point of view, I have looked at some studies like that. A couple i've looked at are at https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7039e3.htm and https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamane ... le/2781283. Here is one that just came out: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/ ... mm7106e1_w.

Also, you can go to the CDC page at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... -cov2.html, read the discussion of a bunch of studies cited in support of their conclusions, and look up some of the 90 references they provide if you want to.

The actual epi studies are all observational so we say that they show association rather than confirming cause and effect. But it's a situation where that's what you have to do. We can't have controlled experiments on something like trying to get people to wear masks. We do have controlled experiments showing how masks do reduce the distribution fine droplets and aerosols.

I just saw a doctor on TV arguing against mask use because we don't have randomized experiments to show mask effects. We also don't have randomized experiments to show that smoking causes cancer in human beings. We say that it does because we have so much evidence of association plus some evidence of mechanisms involved. There are some situations where you have to go with observational data. And in a situation like this common sense should tell you that impeding the breath of infected people is going to reduce transmission risk.

This thing of saying that the science doesn't support something like masks in public school when a surge is going on is just wrong. It does. That is unless you take the approach of saying "yes it reduces the rate some but you also have to consider the psychological damage it does to kids." I wouldn't agree with saying it's a net negative based on that but at least it's an argument.

[JohnStOnge]

Well i was afraid you'd notice that CDC recommends that all students, staff, and visitors wear masks in schools before i got a chance to correct myself on what CDC recommends.

School mask mandates are following the science. The science does say that universal masking reduces the risk. A school is a unique environment in which you can actually see to it that most everybody wears a mask.

No they're not. Masks have minimal, if any effect on the spread of the virus in children. Now you need to balance the two. Study the effects of mandatory mask requirements against the physiological impacts of requiring children to wear masks 8+ hours a day.

Holy cow. I actually wrote that thing in my last post about making that kind of argument before i saw your post. Masks do have an effect on the spread of the virus in children. What do you define as minimal? I'll ask about a statement in the study at https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7039e3.htm:

The average change from week −1 (1–7 days before the start of school) to week 1 (7–13 days after the start of school) for counties with school mask requirements (16.32 cases per 100,000 children and adolescents aged <18 years per day) was 18.53 cases per 100,000 per day lower than the average change for counties without school mask requirements (34.85 per 100,000 per day) (p<0.001).

The rate for counties with school mask requirements was about half the rate for counties without them. If cutting the rate in half a "minimal" difference? If so, how big of a difference would it take to get the difference out of the "minimal" category?

[CID1990]

No they're not. Masks have minimal, if any effect on the spread of the virus in children. Now you need to balance the two. Study the effects of mandatory mask requirements against the physiological impacts of requiring children to wear masks 8+ hours a day.

Holy cow. I actually wrote that thing in my last post about making that kind of argument before i saw your post. Masks do have an effect on the spread of the virus in children. What do you define as minimal? I'll ask about a statement in the study at https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7039e3.htm:

The average change from week −1 (1–7 days before the start of school) to week 1 (7–13 days after the start of school) for counties with school mask requirements (16.32 cases per 100,000 children and adolescents aged <18 years per day) was 18.53 cases per 100,000 per day lower than the average change for counties without school mask requirements (34.85 per 100,000 per day) (p<0.001).

The rate for counties with school mask requirements was about half the rate for counties without them. If cutting the rate in half a "minimal" difference? If so, how big of a difference would it take to get the difference out of the "minimal" category?

You keep quoting the CDC in your posts.

Is this the same CDC that has unequivocally demonstrated its susceptibility to political pressure from both the Trump and Biden administrations?

Why, yes it is!

Whatever are you going to do when Democratic governors stop “following the science”?

More importantly, what will you do when the CDC suddenly starts saying masking in schools is not necessary? (It will happen sometime in July-ish)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SeattleGriz]

When this guy changes tunes, you know something is afoot. Oooh, my neck. Whiplash.

[UNI88]

No they're not. Masks have minimal, if any effect on the spread of the virus in children. Now you need to balance the two. Study the effects of mandatory mask requirements against the physiological impacts of requiring children to wear masks 8+ hours a day.

Holy cow. I actually wrote that thing in my last post about making that kind of argument before i saw your post. Masks do have an effect on the spread of the virus in children. What do you define as minimal? I'll ask about a statement in the study at https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7039e3.htm:

The average change from week −1 (1–7 days before the start of school) to week 1 (7–13 days after the start of school) for counties with school mask requirements (16.32 cases per 100,000 children and adolescents aged <18 years per day) was 18.53 cases per 100,000 per day lower than the average change for counties without school mask requirements (34.85 per 100,000 per day) (p<0.001).

The rate for counties with school mask requirements was about half the rate for counties without them. If cutting the rate in half a "minimal" difference? If so, how big of a difference would it take to get the difference out of the "minimal" category?

Correlation ≠ Causation

The findings in this report are subject to at least four limitations. First, this was an ecologic study, and causation cannot be inferred. Second, pediatric COVID-19 case counts and rates included all cases in children and adolescents aged <18 years; later analyses will focus on cases in school-age children and adolescents. Third, county-level teacher vaccination rate and school testing data were not controlled for in the analyses; later analyses will control for these covariates. Finally, because of the small sample size of counties selected for the analysis, the findings might not be generalizable.

[JohnStOnge]

That is an illustration of the problem. You have numerous studies by credible entities saying masking reduces the risk and you go with a graph by somebody calling themselves 'Eric' on Twitter.

Is his data incorrect?

Can't tell, particularly because there's no way to know from the graph how he categorized a State as having a mask mandate or not, the timing of such mandates, etc. Could be that if he specified that i'd think it was reasonable. Could be i wouldn't.

Obviously it's hard to describe methods in a tweet.

[JohnStOnge]

Holy cow. I actually wrote that thing in my last post about making that kind of argument before i saw your post. Masks do have an effect on the spread of the virus in children. What do you define as minimal? I'll ask about a statement in the study at https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7039e3.htm:



The rate for counties with school mask requirements was about half the rate for counties without them. If cutting the rate in half a "minimal" difference? If so, how big of a difference would it take to get the difference out of the "minimal" category?

You keep quoting the CDC in your posts.

Is this the same CDC that has unequivocally demonstrated its susceptibility to political pressure from both the Trump and Biden administrations?

Why, yes it is!

Whatever are you going to do when Democratic governors stop “following the science”?

More importantly, what will you do when the CDC suddenly starts saying masking in schools is not necessary? (It will happen sometime in July-ish)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The CDC is the premier epidemiology institution in the world. i think what you interpret as responding to political pressure is dealing with realities of the way the society is responding and can be expected to respond. There is no evidence that it is not objectively interpreting the data and the literature.

They obviously have been resisting a lot of political pressure in doing things like recommending masking in schools. They resisted a LOT of political pressure during the Trump Administration. Here are some examples of accounts of how they suffered interference and restriction while Trump was in:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03035-4
https://www.science.org/content/article ... rmined-cdc
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7515606/

I have not seen similar interference by the Biden Administration, but maybe somebody can provide some examples.

I fully expect that the CDC will, at some point, say masking in schools is no longer necessary. They'll look at the data and assess the risk. They may do it a lot sooner than July if the Omicron wave wanes enough soon and they don't see anything else on the horizon. And they may recommend school masking again if the situation calls for it.

This thing with the CDC is one of the worst things about the COVID-19 deaths denial thing, anti-mask thing, anti-vaccine thing, etc. You have the top epidemiology/disease control entity in the world, with a long history as a premier scientific agency, trying to tell people the truth and a bunch of people attack it because the truth isn't what they want to believe.

[CID1990]

You keep quoting the CDC in your posts.

Is this the same CDC that has unequivocally demonstrated its susceptibility to political pressure from both the Trump and Biden administrations?

Why, yes it is!

Whatever are you going to do when Democratic governors stop “following the science”?

More importantly, what will you do when the CDC suddenly starts saying masking in schools is not necessary? (It will happen sometime in July-ish)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The CDC is the premier epidemiology institution in the world. i think what you interpret as responding to political pressure is dealing with realities of the way the society is responding and can be expected to respond. There is no evidence that it is not objectively interpreting the data and the literature.

They obviously have been resisting a lot of political pressure in doing things like recommending masking in schools. They resisted a LOT of political pressure during the Trump Administration. Here are some examples of accounts of how they suffered interference and restriction while Trump was in:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03035-4
https://www.science.org/content/article ... rmined-cdc
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7515606/

I have not seen similar interference by the Biden Administration, but maybe somebody can provide some examples.

I fully expect that the CDC will, at some point, say masking in schools is no longer necessary. They'll look at the data and assess the risk. They may do it a lot sooner than July if the Omicron wave wanes enough soon and they don't see anything else on the horizon. And they may recommend school masking again if the situation calls for it.

This thing with the CDC is one of the worst things about the COVID-19 deaths denial thing, anti-mask thing, anti-vaccine thing, etc. You have the top epidemiology/disease control entity in the world, with a long history as a premier scientific agency, trying to tell people the truth and a bunch of people attack it because the truth isn't what they want to believe.

Wronge

Just wait for this summer


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SeattleGriz]

I am shocked! Biden was going to "shut the virus down", but now he's simply decided to "shut down the counting".

All of this was predicted, although most didn't expect a vaccine mandate shoehorned before Joe B started changing accounting of COVID.

Great they also changed the methodology of the testing to limit false positives.

Don't forget about the lack of tracking breakthrough cases as well earlier this year.

[AZGrizFan]

Is his data incorrect?

Can't tell, particularly because there's no way to know from the graph how he categorized a State as having a mask mandate or not, the timing of such mandates, etc. Could be that if he specified that i'd think it was reasonable. Could be i wouldn't.

Obviously it's hard to describe methods in a tweet.

Could be it wouldn’t matter HOW he specified it, you’d find a way to poke holes in it because you’ve drunk the koolaid.

There’s reams and reams of evidence out there that states with short/temporary/no mask mandates have seen virtually NO difference in cases/100,000 than those with draconian mask and lockdown mandates, many of which still continue.

[JohnStOnge]

High profile Dems: Mask mandates for thee, but not for me!

https://hotair.com/allahpundit/2022/02/ ... ks-n446669

This is how leftists operate, and why they are headed off to the political wilderness for at least a generation

If we define "leftists" as the Democrat Party, all agree that the Republicans are favored going into the 2022 mid terms. But I don't think there has been that big change in overall public opinion. The margin is always narrow.

During the Gallup Party Affiliation Poll polling period closest to the 2020 election, November 5 - 19, 2020, 48% of respondents identified as Democrat or leaning Democrat while 45% identified as Republican or leaning Republican. During the Poll's most recent period, January 3 - 16, 2022, 44% identified as Democrat or leaning Democrat while 45% identified as Republican or leaning Republican.

They had a bad 2021; no question. During the first polling period of the year Democrats/Democrat leaning were 51% vs. only 37% who were Republican/Republican leaning. That was associated with the January 6 debacle. Also, they are clearly doing worse than average historically. Going back through 382 polling periods starting with January 2 - 4, 2004, the averages are Democrat/Democrat leaners 48%, Republican/Republican leaners 42%.

But they are not in unprecedented or near unprecedented territory. Over those 382 polling periods, Democrat/Democrat leaners have been down by 1 percentage point or more 91 times. That's 24% of the time. And there is at least a suggestion that the trend my be going back in their direction as the most recent four periods had them down -5, -6, -2, and now -1. Could be random polling error. We'll see.

Not that I like any of it. I think one has to be out of their mind to want the Republican Party anywhere near power right now. But it is what it is.

Meanwhile, I think the underlying trend still favors the Democrats in the long term. Republicans can do certain things to slow things down. Gerrymander and such. Pass laws to cut the voting rate of non Whites relative to the voting rate of Whites. But you know the story. Some of you have said there are signs that things are changing but there really aren't. The basic long term picture is not pretty for the Republican Party.




p

[JohnStOnge]

Can't tell, particularly because there's no way to know from the graph how he categorized a State as having a mask mandate or not, the timing of such mandates, etc. Could be that if he specified that i'd think it was reasonable. Could be i wouldn't.

Obviously it's hard to describe methods in a tweet.

Could be it wouldn’t matter HOW he specified it, you’d find a way to poke holes in it because you’ve drunk the koolaid.

There’s reams and reams of evidence out there that states with short/temporary/no mask mandates have seen virtually NO difference in cases/100,000 than those with draconian mask and lockdown mandates, many of which still continue.

Ok. So show me some published studies showing that. And by published I don't mean it has to be in a journal like JAMA or something. It can be in something like the MMWR. I'm not saying it's not out there. I just don't see it when I do searches where I try to use objective terminology. What I mean by that is that I don't do a search using something like "evidence for mask effectiveness" or "evidence that masks are not effective." I do something like "evaluations of mask effectiveness." And I get stuff like the one at https://covid19.ncdhhs.gov/media/674/download.

Executive Summary: The peer-reviewed scientific evidence for the protective effect of face masks and respiratory virus infection in healthcare and community settings is overwhelming. The following studies, all published in 2020, focus on the usefulness of wearing facemasks during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nearly all these studies conclude that, outside of the healthcare setting, wearing a face mask reduces one’s risk of being exposed to SARS CoV2 virus, and transmitting the virus to others, if infected. Controlled experiments similarly showed that mask wearing reduced the amount of exposure to virus particles

Here's another one that came up in that search that I'd seen before but forgotten about:

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118

The available evidence suggests that near-universal adoption of nonmedical masks when out in public, in combination with complementary public health measures, could successfully reduce Re to below 1, thereby reducing community spread if such measures are sustained.

That hits upon a problem. The key is near universal mask use. We have never had sufficient cooperation to test what would happen if we had that. We have a bunch of people who just will not listen to the people who know what they are talking about. So we've had this thing be a much bigger problem than it's had to be. The anti fax stuff works into that as well.

Do you know who knows the most about public health? It's the public health experts. And the overwhelming majority of public health experts are telling you that masks and vaccines work.

[CID1990]

Could be it wouldn’t matter HOW he specified it, you’d find a way to poke holes in it because you’ve drunk the koolaid.

There’s reams and reams of evidence out there that states with short/temporary/no mask mandates have seen virtually NO difference in cases/100,000 than those with draconian mask and lockdown mandates, many of which still continue.

Ok. So show me some published studies showing that. And by published I don't mean it has to be in a journal like JAMA or something. It can be in something like the MMWR. I'm not saying it's not out there. I just don't see it when I do searches where I try to use objective terminology. What I mean by that is that I don't do a search using something like "evidence for mask effectiveness" or "evidence that masks are not effective." I do something like "evaluations of mask effectiveness." And I get stuff like the one at https://covid19.ncdhhs.gov/media/674/download.

Executive Summary: The peer-reviewed scientific evidence for the protective effect of face masks and respiratory virus infection in healthcare and community settings is overwhelming. The following studies, all published in 2020, focus on the usefulness of wearing facemasks during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nearly all these studies conclude that, outside of the healthcare setting, wearing a face mask reduces one’s risk of being exposed to SARS CoV2 virus, and transmitting the virus to others, if infected. Controlled experiments similarly showed that mask wearing reduced the amount of exposure to virus particles

Here's another one that came up in that search that I'd seen before but forgotten about:

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118

The available evidence suggests that near-universal adoption of nonmedical masks when out in public, in combination with complementary public health measures, could successfully reduce Re to below 1, thereby reducing community spread if such measures are sustained.

That hits upon a problem. The key is near universal mask use. We have never had sufficient cooperation to test what would happen if we had that. We have a bunch of people who just will not listen to the people who know what they are talking about. So we've had this thing be a much bigger problem than it's had to be. The anti fax stuff works into that as well.

Do you know who knows the most about public health? It's the public health experts. And the overwhelming majority of public health experts are telling you that masks and vaccines work.

There’s the narrative that will trot out this summer….

“If only everybody had worn a mask… but since the virus is endemic because not everybody wore a mask, we might as well stop the mask mandates”

China has universal masking. Theyre even nailing people into their hovels. I guess they must have zero COVID!

Take it to the bank


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

China has universal masking. Theyre even nailing people into their hovels. I guess they must have zero COVID!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Unfortunately I don't think we can assume case/death data from China are reliable. I think it very likely they have far lower rates than we do because what they do goes well beyond mask wearing and vaccination. I am also not suggesting we do some of the things they do.

In thinking about trying to identify a country that does not have the type of hostility to vaccines and masks that we do, I looked at South Korea. You are probably very familiar with what they are doing, but here is an article on it: https://www.voanews.com/a/south-korea-s ... 01110.html.

Here is the kind of quote I was looking for:

There has been no successful anti-vaccine movement. Virtually everyone wears masks, even when running alone outside on empty paths.

As of now, according to Worldometers, South Korea's cumulative number of cases per million population is 20,354 and it's cumulative deaths per million population is 134. Our numbers are 234,566 cases and 2,780 deaths per million population. South Korea isn't at 0. But it's done a lot better than we have.

BTW the Worldometers numbers on China are 74 cases and 3 deaths per million population. Too bad I can't confidently use their data!

[JohnStOnge]

Another South Korea thing:

If the United States had South Korea's COVID-19 cumulative death rate we'd have had 44,812 COVID-19 deaths so far. Round off and say it's been 2 years. That's 22,406 COVID-19 deaths per year.

According to CDC point estimates for the past 10 United States influenza seasons, there have been an average of 35,900 influenza deaths per influenza season.

So, if we had been doing as well as South Korea's been doing, we COULD say that the COVID-19 mortality impact has been comparable to that of seasonal influenza. Unfortunately and obviously, we have not been doing as well as South Korea's bee doing.

[SeattleGriz]

Which studies? Can you cite just one?

SG, one thing you can count on is, if i say there are studies to support a point of view, I have looked at some studies like that. A couple i've looked at are at https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7039e3.htm and https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamane ... le/2781283. Here is one that just came out: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/ ... mm7106e1_w.

Also, you can go to the CDC page at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... -cov2.html, read the discussion of a bunch of studies cited in support of their conclusions, and look up some of the 90 references they provide if you want to.

The actual epi studies are all observational so we say that they show association rather than confirming cause and effect. But it's a situation where that's what you have to do. We can't have controlled experiments on something like trying to get people to wear masks. We do have controlled experiments showing how masks do reduce the distribution fine droplets and aerosols.

I just saw a doctor on TV arguing against mask use because we don't have randomized experiments to show mask effects. We also don't have randomized experiments to show that smoking causes cancer in human beings. We say that it does because we have so much evidence of association plus some evidence of mechanisms involved. There are some situations where you have to go with observational data. And in a situation like this common sense should tell you that impeding the breath of infected people is going to reduce transmission risk.

This thing of saying that the science doesn't support something like masks in public school when a surge is going on is just wrong. It does. That is unless you take the approach of saying "yes it reduces the rate some but you also have to consider the psychological damage it does to kids." I wouldn't agree with saying it's a net negative based on that but at least it's an argument.

Thank you for the links. I don't doubt you've read the studies. You've got a lot of logs in the fire currently in this discussion, so I'll be quick. The guy below says the latest CDC study is really poor.

I don't have the skills to determine if he's right or not, but here's the link to his article on the study. You probably talk similar language.

https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p ... scientific

Vinay Prasad MD MPH is a hematologist-oncologist and Associate Professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the University of California San Francisco. He runs the VKPrasad lab at UCSF, which studies cancer drugs, health policy, clinical trials and better decision making. He is author of over 300 academic articles, and the books Ending Medical Reversal (2015), and Malignant (2020).

[JohnStOnge]

Oh snap! South Korea's been following the CDC recommendations! For the most part anyway. Imagine that. I"m glad CID caused me to look at that.

I was looking at them early on when all this started as a country that was handling things intelligently. But I hadn't looked at them for a while.

Ok...Ok...so maybe they don't have to wear masks while they are running alone on paths with nobody else around. But, overall, their people are handling things a lot more intelligently than our people are.

[SeattleGriz]

Oh snap! South Korea's been following the CDC recommendations! For the most part anyway. Imagine that. I"m glad CID caused me to look at that.

I was looking at them early on when all this started as a country that was handling things intelligently. But I hadn't looked at them for a while.

Ok...Ok...so maybe they don't have to wear masks while they are running alone on paths with nobody else around. But, overall, their people are handling things a lot more intelligently than our people are.

Just point out that S Korea is one of the Asian countries with noticeably less COVID issues.

Two possible options. S Koreans just aren't as bad a shape as the rest of the world, or Omicron actually passed through those nations long time ago. Omi's the spawn of Beta.

[SDHornet]

Just saw a really funny comment on a FoxNews story, that sums up my thoughts exactly:

“By not getting vaccinated, I have a 100% chance of NO vaccine side effects, and a 99.8% chance of surviving COVID.”

I like those odds.

[SDHornet]

I love these JSO meltdowns and him dying on these hills that have been disproven months ago. Absolutely epic.

[SDHornet]

More whiplash. Yeah fuck these people now trying to use the "natural immunity" as part of their platform when it was labeled "misinformation" just a few weeks ago. Fuck these people.

Yeah it's good to see these idiotic mask mandates being rolled back in blue states (internal polling must show them getting absolutely crushed on the generic ballot), but they'll trot lockdowns back out come election season, when the China Virus will sure to be part of flu season, to keep their "vote by mail" schemes in affect to mitigate the bloodletting in the ballot box that is coming their way.

Fuck these people.