Coronavirus COVID-19

[SeattleGriz]

This has been debunked so many times. It all has to do with all metro areas fare better as far as health outcomes. Closer to medicine. You trying to use this to your advantage is despicable.

That is ridiculous. Go ahead and link something to support what you are saying. Go ahead and post a link to something you think shows that the data support that theory as the reason for why "red" states tend to have higher COVID-19 death rates. i looked at population density as a factor in death rate in the analysis described above. It's not a factor when vaccinated/boosted rate is taken into account. No that's not looking directly at metro areas. But the apparent idea you are proposing should show up in that.

You're just completely wrong man. I suspect you really THINK you're right. But you're not.

The fact you need coaching on the topic shows what a hack you are. I think you should be banned from Universities you're so unhinged.

[SeattleGriz]

May everyone know what an unhinged nut you are. Scary.

StOnge is now smarter than human immunity!

Nut job.

Human immunity is made more effective through vaccination.

If you're talking about "natural immunity" that is foolish. We learned a long time ago that we can improve upon the protection offered by "natural immunity."

Again: This thing was made much worse than it had to be because of people doing the kinds of things you are doing. You should stop. I suspect your heart is in the right place. But you are just completely wrong and you are contributing to a misinformation stream that is killing people.

No.

An insanely terrible take. Let me guess, you think we can be bacteria free as well. When was the last time you changed the tissue boxes on your feet?

Whacko

[JohnStOnge]

That is ridiculous. Go ahead and link something to support what you are saying. Go ahead and post a link to something you think shows that the data support that theory as the reason for why "red" states tend to have higher COVID-19 death rates. i looked at population density as a factor in death rate in the analysis described above. It's not a factor when vaccinated/boosted rate is taken into account. No that's not looking directly at metro areas. But the apparent idea you are proposing should show up in that.

You're just completely wrong man. I suspect you really THINK you're right. But you're not.

The fact you need coaching on the topic shows what a hack you are. I think you should be banned from Universities you're so unhinged.

I don't need coaching. I can look at the publicly available data as well as what is in the credible literature and see that you are completely off base. The vaccines are safe and effective. We now know that we need to keep getting them and it's not a one time thing but they are effective in significantly reducing risk of illness and more significantly reducing risk of sever disease and death. They do not harm our immunity. Community masking reduces the risk. So on and so forth.

[JohnStOnge]

Human immunity is made more effective through vaccination.

If you're talking about "natural immunity" that is foolish. We learned a long time ago that we can improve upon the protection offered by "natural immunity."

Again: This thing was made much worse than it had to be because of people doing the kinds of things you are doing. You should stop. I suspect your heart is in the right place. But you are just completely wrong and you are contributing to a misinformation stream that is killing people.

No.

An insanely terrible take. Let me guess, you think we can be bacteria free as well. When was the last time you changed the tissue boxes on your feet?

Whacko

It's a rational take. The idea that we can relying on natural immunity when we have the technology to improve the situation is absurd. Relying on natural immunity was what we were doing during the Dark Ages.

[JohnStOnge]

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-sho ... n-each-sta



And, of course, "Party of Stupid" (i.e., red states) fared the worst.

This has been debunked so many times. It all has to do with all metro areas fare better as far as health outcomes. Closer to medicine.

I would still like to see something to support that hypothesis. Meanwhile, i did some analysis to see if the data I've been looking at suggest it's the case. I think it's reasonable to say that, even though I am looking at State level data, I should see a negative association between population density and Death Rate if being in metro areas means lower Death Rage due to proximity to medical care facilities. States with higher population density should tend to have higher proportions of their populations in metro areas.

The opposite is the case. I started off by doing a Spearman Rho correlation matrix involving the State by State variables Case Rate for the period beginning of the pandemic through 10/15/2022 (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/), Death Rate for that period, vaccinated and Boosted rate through 8/31/2022 (https://usafacts.org/visualizations/cov ... ter%20dose.), Population Density (https://worldpopulationreview.com/state ... -densities), and % Population >65 as of 2020 (https://www.prb.org/resources/which-us- ... he-oldest/). Here is how it turned out:



Blue coefficients are significant at 95% confidence. The coefficient for Death Rate vs. Density is not significant.

I did an Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) multiple regression with Death Rate as the dependent variable and Boosted Rate, Density, and % Population >65 as dependent variables. Any time one uses OLS regression to analyze count or rate data there is concern over violation of assumptions. But I test for that by testing residuals for "significant" departure from normality and making sure using extreme values of independent variables within the range of the data do not result in predicting negative rates. The model passed those tests. Here is how it turned out in terms of the significance levels of the independent variables:

Boosted Rate: Negative Association (Death Rate declines as Boosted Rate increases). p <0.0001 (>99.99% confidence).
Population Density: Positive Association (Death Rate rises as Population Density increases). p = 0.0002 (99.98% confidence).
% Population >65: Positive Association (Death Rate rises as % Population >65 rises. p = 0.0064 (99.36% confidence).

So Population Density becomes "significant" when Boosted Rate and % Population >65 are taken into account. But it is positive. All other things being equal, denser population means HIGHER death rate, not lower.

So why doesn't that show up in the correlations? It looks like it's because more densely populated States tend to have higher Boosted rates and that more than cancels out the effect of Population Density. Note that, in the Spearman matrix, there is a "significant" positive correlation between Boosted Rate and Population Density. Also note that the strongest correlation in the matrix is the one between Death Rate and Boosted Rate. So it looks like the effect of Boosted Rate obscures the effect of Population Density when you look at things one variable at a time. But if you control for Boosted Rate you can see the positive Population Density effect.

[JohnStOnge]

Something else i did today is revisit the phenomenon whereby the average Case and Death Rates of States that voted for Trump are higher than those of States that voted for Trump. Here is a table using cumulative Case and Death rates through 10/15/2022 from https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/. Here is a table:



So Trump States have "significantly" higher Case and Death rates at 95% confidence.

I also looked at indications of how well Republicans/Conservatives follow public health recommendations vs. how well Democrats/Liberals do. For that i used the Economist YouGov poll. I had to go back to the one conducted 9/24 - 27/2022 to find a version where they asked questions about that (https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/r8e9fgqwcm/ ... Report.pdf). Here is a table showing some results (you have to do a little math to get the bottom line percentages of each group getting at least 3 shots):



More to come.

[SDHornet]

I love how deranged this topic has made JSO and his ilk look. It's rather cultish that they are quadrupling down on such scientifically wrong and failed policies. You people were completely wrong and can't even admit it.

[JohnStOnge]

I love how deranged this topic has made JSO and his ilk look. It's rather cultish that they are quadrupling down on such scientifically wrong and failed policies. You people were completely wrong and can't even admit it.

The opposite is the case. We have a situation in which the data make it abundantly clear that vaccination and community masking work to substantially reduce risk. Yet we have people continuing to be in denial about it. Here is another relatively recent assessment:

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/19/10985438 ... eath-tolls

The figure showing correlations between voting for Trump rate vs. vaccination rate and death rate is particularly good. Very clear that, as percent of a county voting for Trump goes up, vaccination rate goes down and death rate goes up.

Had we had 100% compliance with public health recommendations from the start, we would have had millions of fewer cases and hundreds of thousands of fewer deaths. It's very obvious.

[BDKJMU]

The below describes publicly available data that clearly show that States with higher vaccination rates have tended to have less negative impact from COVID-19.

Fun with numbers again. I got COVID-19 case rate data for the period 7/16/2022 through 10/14/2022 from https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/. I picked that period based on the information on proportions of COVID-19 variants in the US over time at https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/... (at least right now...my start period is about to drop off the graph). The idea is that I'm looking at a period during which Omicron BA.5 was the dominant strain. I got vaccinated plus boosted rates as of 8/31/2022 from https://usafacts.org/vis.../covid-vacci ... er-states/.... I got population density by State from https://worldpopulationreview.com/state ... -densities. I got percentages of persons in each State 65 and older from https://www.prb.org/resou.../which-us-s ... he-oldest/.

As in the past, I used Spearman's correlation to establish that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that States with higher vaccinated and boosted rates have had COVID-19 lower case rates during 7/16/2022 through 10/14/2022 (Spearman's Rho = -0.38284, p = 0.00607) as well as lower COVID-19 death rates (Spearman's Rho = -0.29644, p = 0.03659) during the period.

Then I did ordinary least squares (OLS) multiple regression to take population density and % population 65 and older into account. There can be issues with using OLS regression with count and/or rate data but I tested for effects of those. I ended up having to convert the case and death rates into logarithms but ended up with things working. Here is how it turned out:

1) Boosted rate and population density are both factors in 7/16/2022 through 10/14/2022 case rate while percent population 65 and older is not. Within the range of boosted rates (18.2% through 52.4%), going from 18.2% boosted rate to 52.4% boosted rate is estimated to reduce case rate by 35% (25,014 per million population to 16,368). If you control for population density by holding that constant at the 208.9 persons per square mile density, going from 18.2% boosted rate to 52.4% boosted rate is estimated to reduce case rate by 42% (26,339 to 15,245).

2) Boosted rate and percent population 65 and older are both factors in 7/16/2022 through 10/14/2022 death rate while population density is not. Within the range of boosted rates (18.2% through 52.4%), going from 18.2% boosted rate to 52.4% boosted rate is estimated to reduce death rate by 39% (137 per million population to 84). If you control for percent population 65 and older at the 17.4% average, going from 18.2% boosted rate to 52.4% boosted rate is estimated to reduce death rate by 48% (147 to 77).

I know that's a lot of arcane stuff. But there is no question...none...that States with higher vaccinated and boosted rates have tended to have less negative impact from COVID-19.

The sad thing is that no State had more than a 52.4% vaccinated and boosted rate as of August 31. We can only guess as to how much better things would be if something like 90% were up to date on their vaccinations because a rule of OLS regression is that you can't predict beyond the range of the values of the independent variable.

if you are my age (64) right now, being up to date on your vaccinations means you have had five shots. i am not sure where the break point is, but for people in younger age groups but not the youngest you'd have had four shots to be up to date. That is not happening. I think it's safe to say that less than one third of the US population is up to date. Yet you can still see strong evidence consistent with the idea of a positive vaccination effect in data such as described above.

All the great games on last Sat, and this is what you spent your day doing (that probably no one bothered to read)..
Didn't McNeese have a game or something?

[Winterborn]

All the great games on last Sat, and this is what you spent your day doing (that probably no one bothered to read)..

JSO is a real hoot at parties.

And for the record I read it. Then again I think JSO would make a great DNC data analyst.

JSO sees what he wants to see. Which is never a good place for a statistician to be in as it encourages cognitive bias.

[SeattleGriz]

All the great games on last Sat, and this is what you spent your day doing (that probably no one bothered to read)..

JSO is a real hoot at parties.

And for the record I read it. Then again I think JSO would make a great DNC data analyst.

JSO sees what he wants to see. Which is never a good place for a statistician to be in as it encourages cognitive bias.

He's delving into the level of superstitious beliefs. If we'd have only...

[Winterborn]

JSO is a real hoot at parties.

And for the record I read it. Then again I think JSO would make a great DNC data analyst.

JSO sees what he wants to see. Which is never a good place for a statistician to be in as it encourages cognitive bias.

He's delving into the level of superstitious beliefs. If we'd have only...

If "If and buts were cocaine and sluts, we would have one hell of a party".

[Gil Dobie]

Covid, the deadliest version has been gone since March, why are people still talking about it? John's stats are basically during a period where covid is basically over. Everything is back to normal around here. I've been to NBA playoffs, NHL games, Bison Football, Fricso Championship, many sport card shows, including the large Dallas show.

[Winterborn]

Well let's see why Gil.

Biden extends COVID Health Emergency. Multiple states still have a Emergency Health declarations on (granted they should expire in the next two months if not renewed). And there are other discussions going on in the Federal Agencies.

I agree, it should be over. But power begets power and politicians are loath to give that back. Plus in many ways it still should be talked about as there are lessons to be learned and misconceptions cleared up that were perpetuated during the last two years.

Accountability needs to happen. Not that I will hold my breath that it will.

[SeattleGriz]

Been saying it from the start. CDC to vote whether to add Covid shot to child vaccine schedule in the next couple days. Why? Because it offers the pharmaceutical industry full liability. No more EUA needed to protect them, once added to the childhood schedule. Covers adults and kids.

Bet we finally start seeing Comirnaty.

[JohnStOnge]

The below describes publicly available data that clearly show that States with higher vaccination rates have tended to have less negative impact from COVID-19.

Fun with numbers again. I got COVID-19 case rate data for the period 7/16/2022 through 10/14/2022 from https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/. I picked that period based on the information on proportions of COVID-19 variants in the US over time at https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/... (at least right now...my start period is about to drop off the graph). The idea is that I'm looking at a period during which Omicron BA.5 was the dominant strain. I got vaccinated plus boosted rates as of 8/31/2022 from https://usafacts.org/vis.../covid-vacci ... er-states/.... I got population density by State from https://worldpopulationreview.com/state ... -densities. I got percentages of persons in each State 65 and older from https://www.prb.org/resou.../which-us-s ... he-oldest/.

As in the past, I used Spearman's correlation to establish that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that States with higher vaccinated and boosted rates have had COVID-19 lower case rates during 7/16/2022 through 10/14/2022 (Spearman's Rho = -0.38284, p = 0.00607) as well as lower COVID-19 death rates (Spearman's Rho = -0.29644, p = 0.03659) during the period.

Then I did ordinary least squares (OLS) multiple regression to take population density and % population 65 and older into account. There can be issues with using OLS regression with count and/or rate data but I tested for effects of those. I ended up having to convert the case and death rates into logarithms but ended up with things working. Here is how it turned out:

1) Boosted rate and population density are both factors in 7/16/2022 through 10/14/2022 case rate while percent population 65 and older is not. Within the range of boosted rates (18.2% through 52.4%), going from 18.2% boosted rate to 52.4% boosted rate is estimated to reduce case rate by 35% (25,014 per million population to 16,368). If you control for population density by holding that constant at the 208.9 persons per square mile density, going from 18.2% boosted rate to 52.4% boosted rate is estimated to reduce case rate by 42% (26,339 to 15,245).

2) Boosted rate and percent population 65 and older are both factors in 7/16/2022 through 10/14/2022 death rate while population density is not. Within the range of boosted rates (18.2% through 52.4%), going from 18.2% boosted rate to 52.4% boosted rate is estimated to reduce death rate by 39% (137 per million population to 84). If you control for percent population 65 and older at the 17.4% average, going from 18.2% boosted rate to 52.4% boosted rate is estimated to reduce death rate by 48% (147 to 77).

I know that's a lot of arcane stuff. But there is no question...none...that States with higher vaccinated and boosted rates have tended to have less negative impact from COVID-19.

The sad thing is that no State had more than a 52.4% vaccinated and boosted rate as of August 31. We can only guess as to how much better things would be if something like 90% were up to date on their vaccinations because a rule of OLS regression is that you can't predict beyond the range of the values of the independent variable.

if you are my age (64) right now, being up to date on your vaccinations means you have had five shots. i am not sure where the break point is, but for people in younger age groups but not the youngest you'd have had four shots to be up to date. That is not happening. I think it's safe to say that less than one third of the US population is up to date. Yet you can still see strong evidence consistent with the idea of a positive vaccination effect in data such as described above.

All the great games on last Sat, and this is what you spent your day doing (that probably no one bothered to read)..
Didn't McNeese have a game or something?

Yes but McNeese apparently has the worst team relative to the rest of college football that it has had during my entire career or following McNeese football. I'd say I have been following McNeese football very closely and caring about it since the early 1970s. It's never, in my opinion, been this bad. So it's easier to just not think about it. Hopefully the new coach will turn things around. He is totally changing the style, etc. McNeese has historically had a physical style and this guy is trying to change them to an "air raid" style. They have also run a 4-2-5 defense for over 30 years and he's changed them to a 3-3-5. Total roster revision. They lost over 50 players from last year's team to other than graduation.

I wasn't happy with the hire because I like physical style. Obviously, the most successful !-AA/FCS programs have been physical style programs. But it is what it is.

[JohnStOnge]

I am kind of amazed that people continue to question the vaccines. I mean, at this point the data suggesting that vaccination significantly mitigates the problem is overwhelming. There is stuff like being able to look at publicly available data such as I described where there are extremely strong associations between higher vaccination rates and lower case as well as death rates. There are the continuing studies like that at https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 22272308v1 that show that protection against symptomatic infection against Omicron is pretty good initially (though it wanes) and protection against severe outcomes is substantial as well as persistent.

And we have stuff like the study described at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01816-0 where the authors conclude that "Our findings indicate that vaccines may lower transmission risk and, therefore, have a public health benefit beyond the individual protection from severe disease."

I just have to shake my head at the continuing anti-vax nonsense.

[JohnStOnge]

Now i will post something that might make you anti vax guys happy in the interest of intellectual honesty. I posted results from a September YouGov poll showing that Republicans/Conservatives reported being vaccinated and boosted at a lower rate and never wearing masks at a higher rate than Democrats/Liberals did. The same poll did show very little difference in the rates at which the groups reported having had COVID-19. In the poll at https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/r8e9fgqwcm/ ... Report.pdf, 28% of Democrats reported having had COVID-19 vs. 34% of Republicans. And with Liberals vs. Conservatives it was only 31% vs. 33%.

Now, I think that there are lots of other indications that Republicans/Conservatives have had a significantly greater problem. But it's important to note that the particular polls I cited for reported vaccination and mask wearing rates also includes those results.

[Gil Dobie]

Now i will post something that might make you anti vax guys happy in the interest of intellectual honesty. I posted results from a September YouGov poll showing that Republicans/Conservatives reported being vaccinated and boosted at a lower rate and never wearing masks at a higher rate than Democrats/Liberals did. The same poll did show very little difference in the rates at which the groups reported having had COVID-19. In the poll at https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/r8e9fgqwcm/ ... Report.pdf, 28% of Democrats reported having had COVID-19 vs. 34% of Republicans. And with Liberals vs. Conservatives it was only 31% vs. 33%.

Now, I think that there are lots of other indications that Republicans/Conservatives have had a significantly greater problem. But it's important to note that the particular polls I cited for reported vaccination and mask wearing rates also includes those results.

Too many moving factors to have reliable statistics for this John. My wife and I haven't had covid, both vaxed. Both of my liberal in laws had it, both vaxed.

[SeattleGriz]

I am kind of amazed that people continue to question the vaccines. I mean, at this point the data suggesting that vaccination significantly mitigates the problem is overwhelming. There is stuff like being able to look at publicly available data such as I described where there are extremely strong associations between higher vaccination rates and lower case as well as death rates. There are the continuing studies like that at https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 22272308v1 that show that protection against symptomatic infection against Omicron is pretty good initially (though it wanes) and protection against severe outcomes is substantial as well as persistent.

And we have stuff like the study described at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01816-0 where the authors conclude that "Our findings indicate that vaccines may lower transmission risk and, therefore, have a public health benefit beyond the individual protection from severe disease."

I just have to shake my head at the continuing anti-vax nonsense.

Let me give you three very easy reasons:

1) The average IFR for those aged 0-59 is .035%
2) Quote: "It appears the FDA no longer requires clinical trial data. Pfizer & Moderna’s new Omicron vax (tested in 8 mice) was authorized today for children, who are at the highest risk of vaccine-induced myocarditis. FDA bypassed their expert advisers. The most political FDA & CDC in U.S. history."
3). The lies. From "if you get vaccinated, you won't get Covid" all the way down to "The shot stays localized and the mRNA is gone within a day or two".

Nobody trusts the FDA and the CDC anymore. Too many lies and too much obfuscation.

[UNI88]

I am kind of amazed that people continue to question the vaccines. I mean, at this point the data suggesting that vaccination significantly mitigates the problem is overwhelming. There is stuff like being able to look at publicly available data such as I described where there are extremely strong associations between higher vaccination rates and lower case as well as death rates. There are the continuing studies like that at https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 22272308v1 that show that protection against symptomatic infection against Omicron is pretty good initially (though it wanes) and protection against severe outcomes is substantial as well as persistent.

And we have stuff like the study described at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01816-0 where the authors conclude that "Our findings indicate that vaccines may lower transmission risk and, therefore, have a public health benefit beyond the individual protection from severe disease."

I just have to shake my head at the continuing anti-vax nonsense.

Let me give you three very easy reasons:

1) The average IFR for those aged 0-59 is .035%
2) Quote: "It appears the FDA no longer requires clinical trial data. Pfizer & Moderna’s new Omicron vax (tested in 8 mice) was authorized today for children, who are at the highest risk of vaccine-induced myocarditis. FDA bypassed their expert advisers. The most political FDA & CDC in U.S. history."
3). The lies. From "if you get vaccinated, you won't get Covid" all the way down to "The shot stays localized and the mRNA is gone within a day or two".

The FDA and the CDC are like trump. Nobody but suckers trust them anymore. Too many lies and too much obfuscation.

FYP

[SeattleGriz]

Let me give you three very easy reasons:

1) The average IFR for those aged 0-59 is .035%
2) Quote: "It appears the FDA no longer requires clinical trial data. Pfizer & Moderna’s new Omicron vax (tested in 8 mice) was authorized today for children, who are at the highest risk of vaccine-induced myocarditis. FDA bypassed their expert advisers. The most political FDA & CDC in U.S. history."
3). The lies. From "if you get vaccinated, you won't get Covid" all the way down to "The shot stays localized and the mRNA is gone within a day or two".

The FDA and the CDC are like trump. Nobody but suckers trust them anymore. Too many lies and too much obfuscation.

FYP

That'll be what turns StOnge. Just had to invoke Orange Man and that switch will flip! He'll be posting analysis showing the vaccines are bad in no time!

[JohnStOnge]

I am kind of amazed that people continue to question the vaccines. I mean, at this point the data suggesting that vaccination significantly mitigates the problem is overwhelming. There is stuff like being able to look at publicly available data such as I described where there are extremely strong associations between higher vaccination rates and lower case as well as death rates. There are the continuing studies like that at https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 22272308v1 that show that protection against symptomatic infection against Omicron is pretty good initially (though it wanes) and protection against severe outcomes is substantial as well as persistent.

And we have stuff like the study described at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01816-0 where the authors conclude that "Our findings indicate that vaccines may lower transmission risk and, therefore, have a public health benefit beyond the individual protection from severe disease."

I just have to shake my head at the continuing anti-vax nonsense.

Let me give you three very easy reasons:

1) The average IFR for those aged 0-59 is .035%
2) Quote: "It appears the FDA no longer requires clinical trial data. Pfizer & Moderna’s new Omicron vax (tested in 8 mice) was authorized today for children, who are at the highest risk of vaccine-induced myocarditis. FDA bypassed their expert advisers. The most political FDA & CDC in U.S. history."
3). The lies. From "if you get vaccinated, you won't get Covid" all the way down to "The shot stays localized and the mRNA is gone within a day or two".

Nobody trusts the FDA and the CDC anymore. Too many lies and too much obfuscation.

Averaging IFR for 0 through 59 involves combining a large age range when we know the situation changes with age. What is the IFR for 50 - 59? Also, it has nothing to do with the question of whether the vaccines significantly mitigate the situation.

Who are you quoting with #2? Nobody ever said you can't get COVID with vaccination. What was always said is that the risk of getting COVID is reduced and the risk of serious disease is also reduced. I recall a discussion we had about mRNA persistence in the body. As I recall you posted a paper that talked about finding the spike protein persisting in a rare case rather than the mRNA per se. But maybe you can post it again to refresh my memory.

I have seen statements saying that most of the shot stays localized. Having seen one saying all of it does.

It doesn't matter anyway. At this point the data indicating that the vaccines significantly reduce the case loads and death rates are overwhelming. And that's in the context of a situation where no more than a third of the people...and probably less than that...are up to date on their COVID-19 vaccinations. It's just really obvious at this point that the population would be a LOT better off if everybody was up to date on their vaccinations.

[JohnStOnge]

BTW the FDA and the CDC are not lying to you. They were interfered with during the Trump Administration so the messages got jumbled.And they have been wrong on some specific points at time (which is to be expected when dealing with a new situation). But they have not lied to you. And we'd have had a lot fewer cases and deaths if they had not been interfered with and everybody had listened to their recommendations throughout.

[GannonFan]

Nobody ever said you can't get COVID with vaccination.

Why do you weaken your own argument when you know full well Biden said exactly that?