Those headlines will be out at the first sign that they're needed, imho : (How many days before these headlines come out on our east coast?
Anyone taking five dollar bets?
“CDC recommends that people with a history of severe allergic reactions not related to vaccines or injectable medications - such as allergies to food, pet, venom, environmental, or latex - may still get vaccinated," the CDC said.
Anyone who experiences anaphylaxis after getting the first vaccine should not get the second shot, the CDC said. COVID-19 vaccines are meant to be given across two doses, spaced about three weeks apart."People with a history of allergies to oral medications or a family history of severe allergic reactions, or who might have a milder allergy to vaccines (no anaphylaxis) - may also still get vaccinated.”
“We’ll be looking at all of the data we can from each of these reactions to sort out exactly what happened. And we’ll also be looking to try to understand which components of the vaccine might be helping to produce them,” he said.
“So that could be a culprit here. And that’s why we’ll be watching very closely,” he said. “But we just don’t know at this point.”
They go away after a day. According to the FDA website, the most commonly reported side effects include tiredness, headache, muscle pain, and chills. The agency said they go away after several days.Both vaccines have “systemic side effects,” which are “generally mild,” Marks said.
The variant’s most remarkable feature is the number of mutations that have shaped it. Sir Patrick Vallance, the government’s chief scientific adviser, said 23 letters of the viral genetic code have changed, many of which are associated with the spike protein that the virus uses to get into human cells. Coronaviruses do not usually mutate so quickly, typically accumulating about two genetic changes per month.
After appearing in Kent in late September, the mutation was responsible for 28% of infections in London by early November and in the week ending Dec. 9 accounted for 62%."This new variant is very concerning, and is unlike anything we have seen so far in the pandemic," said Jeffrey Barrett, director of the Covid Genomics Initiative at the Wellcome Sanger Institute.
What on earth is this actually supposed to mean?“Stay Alert. Control the Virus. Save Lives.”
“While we must appropriately consider best practices to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission, we also must ensure the children across the state are not unfairly deprived of their opportunities for outdoor access and play,” the legislators wrote.
To put these numbers into perspective, the number of deaths California reported on Wednesday was more than double the daily high in any previous month.“California broke its statewide records for both coronavirus cases reported and deaths reported in a single day on Wednesday,” The Hill reports.
“The state reported 51,724 COVID-19 cases on Wednesday, breaking the previous record of 42,088 cases, which was just set on Monday, according to a Los Angeles Times tally.”
"During the first Shelter in Place order, which I wholeheartedly endorsed, the virus was brand new and had the capability of spreading exponentially due to zero immunity and people's complete lack of awareness," San Mateo County Health Officer Scott Morrow recently observed on the county’s website.
Morrow implied that many of the actions being taken suggest California officials have learned little since the spring.“[That order] was very much consistent with my long-held views about the judicious use of power.…However, I very quickly rescinded my initial orders shuttering society and focused my new orders on the personal behaviors that are driving the pandemic… .”
Morrow was blunt in his appraisal of the restrictions being imposed across the Golden State.“Just because one has the legal authority to do something, doesn't mean one has to use it, or that using it is the best course of action,” he wrote.
“What I believed back in May, and what I believe now, is the power and authority to control this pandemic lies primarily in your hands, not mine."
With every passing week the results of government lockdowns become more clear. They cause tremendous and widespread harms—no one disagrees on this point—but the supposed benefits of the policies remain tenuous. Despite the bevy of evidence they possess, lawmakers continue to embrace restrictions because of bad incentives.“One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results,” Friedman famously observed.
The Washington Post reported yesterday that nearly 8 million Americans have slipped into poverty since summer. When one considers the damage government lockdowns have wrought compared to the positive results they’ve achieved, one begins to see why Mises saw the unchecked power of authorities as such a threat.“The planner is a potential dictator who wants to deprive all other people of the power to plan and act according to their own plans,” Mises wrote in Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis.
“He aims at one thing only: the exclusive absolute pre-eminence of his own plan.”
Others complained of what appeared to be random errors perpetrated by the algorithms tasked with determining which nurses deserved priority. It all begs the question: why even resort to these algorithms? Why not just let the top managers decide? Well, the funny thing about algorithms and other "quantitative" methodologies is they allow people to distance themselves from outcomes that involve extremely serious consequences."Residents are patient-facing, we’re the ones who have been asked to intubate, yet some attendings who have been face-timing us from home are being vaccinated before us," said Dr. Sarah Johnson, a third-year OB-GYN resident who has delivered babies from COVID-positive patients during the pandemic. "This is the final straw to say, 'We don’t actually care about you.'"
When they asked about the algorithm tasked with determining the first 5K allocations, they were told that, for some obscure bureaucratic reason, they would receive a lower priority.Another resident, who asked not to be named, said a nurse who works in an operating room for elective surgeries has been notified she’ll get the vaccine in the first wave. “We test people for COVID before elective surgeries, so by definition, we will know if those patients have COVID,” he said, so to him, it didn’t make sense that that nurse would be prioritized.
Ultimately, only 7 of the 1K+ residents made the priority list.An algorithm chose who would be the first 5,000 in line. The residents said they were told they were at a disadvantage because they did not have an assigned “location” to plug into the calculation and because they are young, according to an email sent by a chief resident to his peers. Residents are the lowest-ranking doctors in a hospital. Stanford Medicine has about 1,300 across all disciplines.
A letter sent by the Stanford leadership explained that the algorithm was meant to "ensure equity and justice".Only seven made the priority vaccination list, despite the fact that this week, residents were asked to volunteer for ICU coverage in anticipation of a surge in COVID-19 cases.
Apparently, it accomplished this while also leaving residents and nurses exposed.In a letter to Stanford leadership sent on Thursday, the chief resident council wrote, “While leadership is pointing to an error in an algorithm meant to ensure equity and justice, our understanding is this error was identified on Tuesday and a decision was made not to revise the vaccine allocation scheme before its release today.” The council asked for a timeline for vaccination of the residents and transparency regarding the algorithm.
Just another reminder that social justice warriors should be careful what they wish for.In response to the residents’ protests, Dr. Niraj Sehgal, chief medical officer, sent an email saying, “Please know that the perceived lack of priority for residents and fellows was not the intent at all.” He added that with the anticipated authorization of Moderna’s vaccine, “we’re increasingly confident in getting everyone vaccinated, including all of you.” He signed off with “heartfelt apologies.”
"A recent study from the National Governors Association also showed that 'many states have incorporated health equity principles in their vaccination plans to varying degrees.' It reported that California, Louisiana, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Indiana have listed fairness, equity, or both as key principles for vaccine distribution. Oregon is also emphasizing health equity as a central pillar of its rollout, while North Carolina 'specifically cited historically marginalized populations as an early-phase critical population group.'"
However, providers will be able to bill you an administrative fee for giving the shot to patients, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
This would be similar to paying a charge when you visit the doctor’s office, or for specialized vaccine delivery, such as infusion, a process in which a substance — like medication, a chemotherapy drug or hydration — enters the bloodstream intravenously.
If you don’t have insurance, the medical provider you used should be reimbursed for any COVID-19 treatment you receive through the CARES Act Provider Relief Fund, at no cost to you.
So it’s kind of free, sort of, unless somebody charges you but then you might be able to get your money back. Multiply by your number of family members.…If you receive a bill for administration fees, it’s still unclear whether or not those will be covered in full. It’s a good idea to contact your local provider or health insurance company for more details on whether you’ll be charged additional fees before receiving a vaccine. It might be that you have more than one option for immunization, including finding a medical provider that would give you the vaccine free of charge, or offer a more straightforward approach to reimbursement if you’re charged. (source)
The coronavirus pandemic and corresponding lockdown made way for “one of the greatest wealth transfers in history,” CNBC’s Jim Cramer said Thursday.
The stock market is rising as big business rebounds from state-ordered stoppage of nonessential activity, while small businesses drop like flies, the “Mad Money” host said.
Cramer believes that the recovery of the stock market has little or nothing to do with the recovery of the economy at large – for which his outlook is grim. Although he supports another stimulus package for small businesses, it’s unlikely to be enough.“The bigger the business, the more it moves the major averages, and that matters because this is the first recession where big business … is coming through virtually unscathed, if not going for the gold,” he added. (source)
“The companies that took the money just got a big break: they only need to spend 60% on their employees to get the loans forgiven, down from the original 75%. That’s important, as most small businesses fail because they can’t afford to pay the rent,” Cramer said.
And he’s right – what good will paying the rent do (aside from short-term good for the property owner) if nobody is allowed to patronize the business due to more government-mandated shutdowns?“But, in the end, the stimulus package probably won’t be enough, for one simple reason,” he said. “It’s not going to work because of social distancing.” (source)
Poor folks aren’t going to go straight to the front of the line. As it stands, senior government officials are at the front of the line, then healthcare workers, then employees and residents of nursing homes. Next will be essential workers, those with comorbidities, and the elderly. Each state’s governor will decide the pecking order. Dr. Anthony Fauci says that the ordinary person shouldn’t expect a vaccination until April, May, or June of 2021.The rollout of the vaccine isn’t going to happen overnight either. There are over 330 million people in the US, but Pfizer says it expects to send the US 25 million doses by the end of 2020, or enough to vaccinate about 12.5 million Americans, as each recipient will need two doses. That’s roughly the populations of New York City and Los Angeles combined. Moderna, which has a similar type of vaccine as Pfizer, says it will be able to make about 15 million vaccine doses at first, which can treat 7.5 million people (again, two shots per person). (source)
damn.
i just tried to show someone the clip of the nurse fainting after her shot..
and wouldn't you know it, twitter has deleted it.
anyone know where it is on the alternative vid sites?
Next will be essential workers,Zerohedge
ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zerowww.zerohedge.com
Are We Facing A Future Where Life Only Goes "Back To Normal" For Rich People?
MONDAY, DEC 21, 2020 - 17:00
Authored by Daisy Luther via The Organic Prepper blog,
As jobs and businesses vanish, and prices go up, Americans could soon face another expense – the expense of proving that they’re “healthy.”
While the government tells us that the Covid vaccinations are going to be “free,” are they really? Let’s take a look.
How much will it actually cost to get vaccinated against Covid?
While the government is paying for the vaccine itself, it will still cost money for most people to get injected with it.
So it’s kind of free, sort of, unless somebody charges you but then you might be able to get your money back. Multiply by your number of family members.
And what about all the apps for proving you’ve gotten vaccinated? Will that be government-funded or will people pay a few bucks to the app store to download it onto their smartphones? What about people who don’t have phones? What about those who can no longer afford phone service?
I think it’s pretty easy to see that this could become an escalating expense for some and completely unaffordable for others. If you’ve never been in a position where an added $5 expense could make or break your grocery bill, then it may be difficult for you to understand how tough this could be on families who have suddenly found themselves living in ever-deepening poverty.
How will you manage if you can’t prove that you’re covid-free?
Soon, all sorts of businesses and services may require people to prove that they don’t have covid with a recent test (probably not a free one once people are doing the tests for recreational purposes) or proof of vaccination.
But that’s not all. Schools and workplaces may make proof of health mandatory as well. So what happens if you can’t afford your vaccine or documentation? Does that mean your kids can’t go to school and that you can’t go to work? What if you’ve been out of work for months but to get a new job, you must show your proof of health and/or vaccination?
And what about public transit? I’m not talking about flights to Europe – I’m talking about taking the bus or an Uber so you can get to work? What about entering stores? As private businesses, they have the right to choose those with whom they do business as long as discrimination can’t be proven. How can a poor person get from Point A to Point B if they can’t afford vaccination and proof of vaccination?
Who needs a social credit system when you can just shut down entire sectors of society because they can’t provide proof they’ve gotten their shots? You know, like the little rabies tag your dog gets for his collar after he’s vaccinated by the vet.
The transfer of wealth has been enormous…and will continue to be.
Covid and the subsequent government restrictions have all but wiped out the middle class, sweeping millions of formerly financially comfortable families into debt and poverty as they struggle to survive. Countless businesses have collapsed under the weighty mandates. Chapter 11 Bankruptcies are up by 48% this year. Meanwhile, enormous corporations like Walmart, Home Depot, and Amazon have seen soaring profits.
Jim Cramer, a financial analyst for CNBC calls it one of the greatest transfer of wealth in history.
Cramer believes that the recovery of the stock market has little or nothing to do with the recovery of the economy at large – for which his outlook is grim. Although he supports another stimulus package for small businesses, it’s unlikely to be enough.
And he’s right – what good will paying the rent do (aside from short-term good for the property owner) if nobody is allowed to patronize the business due to more government-mandated shutdowns?
What happens next?
As these giant companies rake in the profit and Mom & Pop businesses go under, what happens next? Finding a job right now is next to impossible and it will soon be even harder as the second wave of lockdowns intensifies. More businesses will go under. More jobs will disappear.
And then the much-vaunted vaccine will arrive to save the day (also making a hefty profit for Big Pharma – don’t leave them out when you think about this transfer of wealth.) It’ll save the day for those who can afford it, anyway. And for those who can afford to prove they’ve gotten it.
Poor folks aren’t going to go straight to the front of the line. As it stands, senior government officials are at the front of the line, then healthcare workers, then employees and residents of nursing homes. Next will be essential workers, those with comorbidities, and the elderly. Each state’s governor will decide the pecking order. Dr. Anthony Fauci says that the ordinary person shouldn’t expect a vaccination until April, May, or June of 2021.
Oh – or if you have the option of making a $25,000 donation to a hospital, you might be able to bump the line and get your vaccination before the peons do.
So don’t expect all this to happen quickly. Don’t expect the jobs to come back, the businesses to reopen, and life to return to normal when the calendar flips to 2021.
And unless you’re rich, you might not ever see that pre-covid normal again.
New Study Shows Mask Mandates Had Zero Effect in Florida or Nationwide, But the Lie Continues
Scott Morefield
|
Posted: Dec 21, 2020 12:01 AM
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
Source: AP Photo/Alex Brandon
Obviously, no amount of evidence, data, trends, facts, studies, or science will ever convince most ‘public health officials’ that masks aren’t doing squat to stop the spread of COVID-19. Cases and deaths continue to spike (yes, many of these are super-sensitive PCR test-driven numbers, but still) despite the fact that well over 90% of the country are complying with their absurd mandates. Yet, predictably, the virus keeps going right on virusing, as highly contagious respiratory viruses, unfortunately, tend to do, especially once cold weather hits.
Nevertheless, those of us who are mask skeptics have a difficult chore in front of us. Given that most of the country is under a mask mandate of some form or another, we can point to spikes all day AFTER these mandates were put in place only to have our opponents simply say, “Look how bad it would have been WITHOUT masks!”
It’s a tough argument to counter given the fact that our overlords have sold masking as a low-cost, easy “solution” that’s totally worth it even if they “save one life,” or something (nevermind the health risks - let’s censor docs who talk about those!). So, how DO we prove that things wouldn’t have been worse without masks? One way is to look at data from the few free states remaining.
In Florida, for example, most counties have so far bravely refused to implement mask mandates while others, usually in high population centers, have done so. Justin Hart and the team at Rational Ground (follow them on Twitter here - it’s worth it) just released a comprehensive data analysis of masked vs non-masked counties in the state. A total of 22 of 67 counties in the state have implemented a mask order at some point during the period of May 1 through December 15. It may not sound like many, but these include almost all of Florida’s largest metro areas. To be more than fair, if an area added a mask order at some point during the outbreak, the study’s authors gave a 14 day period to allow time for cases to begin subsiding. “Cases were summed for both mandate and non-mandate jurisdictions and adjusted per 100,000 people for days the mandates were or were not in effect,” wrote the authors, describing the methodology used.
If masks did even close to as advertised, one would expect to see the counties that went maskless to be absolute dumpster fires next to the counties that implemented mandates, right? At the very least, the numbers should favor the masked areas by more than a percentage point or two. So, how did it go? Yep, it was the Mask Cult’s worse nightmare:
“When counties DID have a mandate in effect, there were 667,239 cases over 3,137 days with an average of 23 cases per 100,000 per day. When counties DID NOT have a countywide order, there were 438,687 cases over 12,139 days with an average of 22 cases per 100,000 per day.”
In other words, counties with mask-mandates in place actually did WORSE than those that refused to implement them. (Yeah, color me shocked.) The authors even accounted for population density in their analysis, suggesting that it didn’t have an impact on the numbers because four of the 12 most populous counties in Florida never had a countywide order. “When the eight DID have an order in effect, there were 64 cases per 1,000. In periods 11 of 12 DID NOT have one, there were 40,” they wrote.
“But that’s just Florida,” you say. “They’re weirdos anyway. Surely masks have worked in the rest of the country.” Well, I’m glad you asked! The good folks at Rational Ground went on to compare national numbers, pitting the states that resisted the urge to impose a statewide mask mandate against those that masked up. How did those compare?
“When states DID have a mandate in effect, there were 9,605,256 cases over 5,907 total days and averaged 27 cases per 100,000 per day. When states DID NOT have a statewide order there were 5,781,716 cases over 5,772 total days averaging 17 cases per 100,000 people per day.”
So there you have it, incontrovertible data evidence that mask mandates do little to nothing to stop or even slightly curb the spread of COVID-19. If masks were the answer, wouldn’t you expect to see a drop in cases not long after mask mandates are implemented? At the very least, wouldn’t you expect to see cases level off and STAY leveled off? What you would NOT expect would be what has actually happened, for cases to spike as they have done since November seemingly all across the country, regardless of whether or not a mandatory masking policy was in place.
Further, wouldn’t you also expect states and areas that MASKED HARRDERRR than anyone else, states like California that have the ‘bold leadership’ to insist the plebes under their control mask up outside on hiking trails and sitting alone in parks, to have the lowest case counts of all? Just look at the latest per capita numbers there compared to Florida and tell me with a straight face that mask mandates ‘work.’ As Dave Rubin adeptly pointed out earlier this month, Florida’s numbers “should be ten times higher” than California’s. I mean, nobody is asking for masks to work perfectly, but hell, shouldn’t we expect SOME performance?
Numbers and data like this get down to the brass tacks. We can pit our doctors, scientists, and epidemiologists against their doctors, scientists, and epidemiologists on the actual science behind whether forcing people to put a moist, bacteria & virus-laden piece of cloth over the holes through which they breathe actually works to contain a virus that’s infinitesimally smaller than its threads (and yes, there are plenty of doctors, scientists, and epidemiologists on Team Reality too, and a bunch of them are on this must-follow Twitter list!), but if mask-mandates aren’t actually WORKING to curb the spread, why do we have them in place?
It’s complete and utter nonsense, of course. You know it, I know it, and the powers-that-be likely know it too. So why do they insist on continuing the charade? Whatever it is, it has NOTHING to do with either public health or real science.