Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,589
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    cryptoblizzard
    Newest Member
    cryptoblizzard
    Joined

Spring Banter


Baroclinic Zone
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have worked in US manufacturing for over 10 years — over half of those years were spent in quality control, pharma R&D and performing high level quality investigations at a top biologics manufacturer. It goes without saying that all vaccines are not equal. This joke is on you.
Cheers.
And I've been in human and animal vaccine vaccine research for 25yrs. What's your beef with the current vaccines?

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, mreaves said:

That tweet was aimed at the BIPOC community. Currently, everyone 50+ is eligible and everyone 16+ with conditions that make them vulnerable. 
https://www.healthvermont.gov/covid-19/vaccine/getting-covid-19-vaccine

So why is an 18 year old healthy BIPOC kid more deserving of a vaccine than an 18 year old healthy Asian American kid?

This is why the govt isn't supposed to use straight race as a differentiator when taxpayer dollars are involved. It's always unfair.

  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

So why is an 18 year old healthy BIPOC kid more deserving of a vaccine than an 18 year old healthy Asian American kid?

This is why the govt isn't supposed to use straight race as a differentiator when taxpayer dollars are involved. It's always unfair.

Asian is part of the BIPOC definition?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PhineasC said:

Look beyond the fact that you “already received your vaccine and so this doesn’t matter.” The fact that the govt is now openly prioritizing services based on race (and patting themselves on the back about it) should concern everyone. 

I feel like I am shouting into the void on this stuff... 

The marketing and communication of this decision could've been better in a big way, but in Vermont you can see how it happened.  Non-whites generally reside in the Burlington area (this is an exceptionally white state) and that BIPOC community often lives in larger family units in the BTV area, often in lower income zones.  VT also takes in a larger percentage of refugees (the culture is great, plenty of Sudanese traditional dress and people seen out and about around the south end when I lived there) per capita than most other states and obviously you would gravitate towards a larger community of your culture if you relocated.  Those communities are also less likely due to socio-economic reasons, as well as trust, to try and seek out the vaccine.  They are also the larger at-risk community due to tight living spaces and larger family units/gatherings being the cultural norms... along with some studies showing higher risk levels.

Anyone you talk to around here just sort of shrugs their shoulders and is like, sure makes sense.  They get why because it's aimed specifically at a given community.  They should've narrowed it down more for sure, or definitely phrased it better, but it is aimed at Vermont specifically and no where else.  Vermont gov't makes decisions in a vacuum of Vermont, which in this case will open it up to some larger issues given that it's part of the United States, ha.  Does every BIPOC live in an urban area and in larger family units in Vermont?  No, for sure, but it's obvious that is the group they are going for.  The phrasing and roll-out of it was a PR nightmare relative to the larger United States but I understand what they were going for here.

That doesn't happen in a place with more BIPOC per capita... Vermont is in the basement with Idaho and Montana per capita.  The gov't here is targeting a very specific community, but it's coming off as shocking in other parts of the U.S. due to it's implications.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, powderfreak said:

The marketing and communication of this decision could've been better in a big way, but in Vermont you can see how it happened.  Non-whites generally reside in the Burlington area (this is an exceptionally white state) and that BIPOC community often lives in larger family units in the BTV area, often in lower income zones.  VT also takes in a larger percentage of refugees (the culture is great, plenty of Sudanese traditional dress and people seen out and about around the south end when I lived there) per capita than most other states and obviously you would gravitate towards a larger community of your culture if you relocated.  Those communities are also less likely due to socio-economic reasons, as well as trust, to try and seek out the vaccine.  They are also the larger at-risk community due to tight living spaces and larger family units/gatherings being the cultural norms... along with some studies showing higher risk levels.

Anyone you talk to around here just sort of shrugs their shoulders and is like, sure makes sense.  They get why because it's aimed specifically at a given community.  They should've narrowed it down more for sure, or definitely phrased it better, but it is aimed at Vermont specifically and no where else.  Vermont gov't makes decisions in a vacuum of Vermont, which in this case will open it up to some larger issues given that it's part of the United States, ha.  Does every BIPOC live in an urban area and in larger family units in Vermont?  No, for sure, but it's obvious that is the group they are going for.  The phrasing and roll-out of it was a PR nightmare relative to the larger United States but I understand what they were going for here.

That doesn't happen in a place with more BIPOC per capita... Vermont is in the basement with Idaho and Montana per capita.  The gov't here is targeting a very specific community, but it's coming off as shocking in other parts of the U.S. due to it's implications.

This is a reasonable post, and I can see how it would probably be interpreted a different way in VT. The fact that this tweet came out so directly from the Governor's official account was kind of shocking to me, however. He didn't even mince words. Just flat out said if you are identify as a BIPOC person please feel free to jump the line. The Federal and State governments are not supposed to be able to offer taxpayer-funded services based solely on skin color... it definitely needed to be phrased and couched differently. 

  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

It is? I admit I am not up on the latest identifiers. Black, Indigenous People of Color, right? A Chinese American is not that, for example. 

https://www.healthvermont.gov/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/COVID-19-among-BIPOC-Data-Brief.pdf

This was put out in December.  The governor has consistently resisted anything but age banding, including BIPOC. https://www.wcax.com/2021/03/19/vt-health-reject-call-to-lift-all-bipoc-vaccination-criteria/  Because there has been a large increase in the rate of infection within the BIPOC community and there is a smaller percentage of vaccinations , the decision was made to try and target that community.  https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/local/2021/03/31/vermont-covid-update-vaccine-schedule-what-has-changed-vt/4818171001/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

This is a reasonable post, and I can see how it would probably be interpreted a different way in VT. The fact that this tweet came out so directly from the Governor's official account was kind of shocking to me, however. He didn't even mince words. Just flat out said if you are identify as a BIPOC person please feel free to jump the line. The Federal and State governments are not supposed to be able to offer taxpayer-funded services based solely on skin color... it definitely needed to be phrased and couched differently. 

I don't disagree about the wider implications on a larger United States level.  I do understand what Vermont as a state with a defined border and population make-up was trying to do.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, jbenedet said:

What will be widely accepted as fact first?The vaccine “is not effective against new strains which are now more widespread. New Vaccine roll-out needed...new restrictions/restrictions remain in place.” Or “short to long term side effects of an (experimental) vaccine are worse than the direct risks from the virus itself —to low risk/healthy individuals. 
 

I’ll wait. :popcorn:

You’re the pope. You cure diseases with a wave of your hand. Why would you need it?

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, powderfreak said:

That doesn't happen in a place with more BIPOC per capita... Vermont is in the basement with Idaho and Montana per capita.  The gov't here is targeting a very specific community, but it's coming off as shocking in other parts of the U.S. due to it's implications.

And the rest of NNE isn't far away.  Distance from the Confederacy, infertile (or long-farmed) land while Ohio and points west beckoned, relatively few factory jobs that weren't already staffed by PQ immigrants a generation before the Civil War.

Moderna #2 crated a bit more soreness at the injection site but so far nothing beyond that.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, tamarack said:

And the rest of NNE isn't far away.  Distance from the Confederacy, infertile (or long-farmed) land while Ohio and points west beckoned, relatively few factory jobs that weren't already staffed by PQ immigrants a generation before the Civil War.

Moderna #2 crated a bit more soreness at the injection site but so far nothing beyond that.

Whenever I’m in the woods and see an old stone fence or abandoned cellar hole, I think about the people who farmed there and how they must of reacted when the saw the flat, fertile land of the Midwest. They must have thought they were crazy trying to farm the rocks of New England. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DavisStraight said:

Where did you read that dave?

It was actually yesterday morning. Not sure why I got it confused.  It was on Twitter a bunch.  I will post a link to a story on it 

https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/authorities-monitor-for-seismic-activity-following-reports-of-shaking-booming-noise/2345427/

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, HoarfrostHubb said:

It was actually yesterday morning. Not sure why I got it confused.  It was on Twitter a bunch.  I will post a link to a story on it 

https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/authorities-monitor-for-seismic-activity-following-reports-of-shaking-booming-noise/2345427/

Weird, there’s been several stories like this from across the country the past few months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At ~ 58 million full vaccination count as of this morning, ... or ~ 17.5% of the U.S. population, I am curious at what percentage ranges ( be it 30, 50 ...70 ) do we see statistical curves break/respond?  

The first curve I'd like to see break toward less is the persistent 60 to 70K new cases per day.

I check every evening while in my own doomscrolling daily dosing .. That number doesn't seem to modulate up or down by much.  We witnessed the intrawinter wave that was modeled, and along with that,  thank god for CNN's "ethical" cause, the fear that pumped another few billion into their dystopian rage.  But that wave came and went; the new cases per diem crashed.

Now in the last 20 days..it appears to not really be declining.  At 58 to 72 K per day, it seems to just be bouncing around in that range.  I'd like to know at what full vax count do we see it actually slope negative - as in like all the sudden, 50K ... then 40K ...30K   ...without returning, across that break point..   That might be an indication that this herd thing is getting close.  

This is not going as fast as it was touted to go, a month ago.  I remember a lot Biden optimism then that we'd have half the population vax'ed by the end of April or mid May, and in projecting the last 2 weeks of percentages, ...I think that falls short of 50% by a significant margin. 

Plus, among the various texting groups I belong to, there is a way around preferential restriction due to dose logistics. Namely, that toward the end of days ... doses of the vaccine have to be thrown out if unused.  Seems there is sloppy management of supply and demand connection there .. but be that as it may, if one shows up at the end of shift rotation and asks if there were any 'no shows,' or left overs..etc., they are quietly administered and shown the door - thanks for helping us not waste vaccine - and they're out. 

Lol, meanwhile I'm sure there are those rocking in wait to get theirs.   I've made it the last year without getting this thing, and so ... seems 'reasonable' that relative to whatever I am doing, so long as I don't deviate much I should make it .. - it is likely I can make it the next two weeks... at which point for Mass it opens up to general population above 16..

That all said, I'm am wondering if that is the same or close across most states - those dates?  Because the bell curve of population mass is in fact inside that 16 to 60 age range, so when that time comes, we may see an acceleration of the vax rates. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...