This woman is ON FIRE!!! She knows her numbers!!

[Fla Dem]

Link to tweet

?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1437569466838228994%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fforums.jokersupdates.com%2Fubbthreads%2Fshowthreaded.php%3FBoard%3DNewstandNumber%3D29564895

[Hugin]

1. Numbers are hot. n/t

[Bernardo de La Paz]

16. To summarize her numbers, up front (I believe they are correct):

1 in 8 chance of getting infected (confirmed case) if you are not vaccinated.

... but 1 in 13,400 chance of getting infected if you are fully vaccinated. (Figure will go up, but even 10x odds still extremely low.)

1 in 61 chance of dying if you do get a confirmed case. ( 8 x 61 equals 1 in 500 chance of dying if you are not vaccinated).

... but a 1 in 86,000 chance of dying if you are vaccinated.

[Hugin]

23. That's what I heard, too.

Yep, Bernardo. Those are some pretty solid numbers.

[Celerity]

41. her numbers are way off, there have been at least 100 million US cases, likely more, not 41m

University of Washington at Seattle researchers estimate that at least 60% of US COVID-19 cases have gone unreported due to biases in test data and delayed reporting, according to a modelling study.



https://www.pnas.org/content/118/31/e2103272118

[Bernardo de La Paz]

46. I wrote (twice) "confirmed cases". Her numbers also follow that. As does Worldometers

Delayed reporting does not remove the numbers from the tallies.

Yes, testing is imperfect and that goes both ways and the imperfections tend to (imperfectly) cancel each other out. (Reference the Central Limit Theorem for normal distributions)

But 1) your math doesn't add up, 2) even accepting your premise it does not change the point.

1) 160% of 40 million is 64 million, not over 100 million.

2) 160% more cases changes the calculations by not even a single binary bit (less than 200%). Her numbers are not way off. We are talking about a 100 to 1 difference in outcomes from unvaccinated to being vaccinated so a factor of 1.6 to 1 is lost in the noise because the main signal (100 to 1) is much louder.

[Celerity]

47. your maths are way off as well, you are using a flawed formula on the simplest of things

if 60% of the actual cases have NOT been reported

and you have 100 million ACTUAL cases

that yields 40 million reported

60 million unreported (ie 60% of 100 million)

you are incorrectly increasing the 40 million BY 60%

re-read what I posted

at least 60% of US COVID-19 cases have gone unreported

[Bernardo de La Paz]

54. Okay, so your factor is 2.5, not 1.6. Barely one binary bit. Factor of 100 to 1 dominates

Call it 40 to 1.

Saying "way off" is obscuring the BIG POINT. You are usually better than that.

[Celerity]

58. if you think that the difference between 40 million and 100 million as a base input is not large

when calculating probability, then we operate in two extremely divergent statistical paradigms

cheers

[Bernardo de La Paz]

62. No. I don't and you know it. So don't say (stuff) like that I never said.

What your 40 --> 100 transformation does to the numbers is on the order of magnitude of (maybe) turning the 100 to 1 advantage down to 40 to one. Or something similar. I haven't crunched that set of numbers the way my other posts have.

A 40 to one advantage (or 100 to 1 or something in between) is still a big advantage.

So, yeah, 100 million is bigger than 40 million but emphasizing it the way you do makes it seem that getting vaccinated is not worth much.

You wouldn't try to stuff words into my mouth if you weren't defending some kind of weird weak proposition. If you had something that was clearly defensible you'd state it clearly. What is it that you are defending anyway? As if I said 60 million is nothing. Which of course I didn't say. And further I acknowledge that 250% is not 160%. BUT IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE CONCLUSION EVEN IF WE ACCEPT THAT ONE PART OF THE CALCULATION IS 250% OFF. (We don't necessarily accept or reject but might accept it later).

Her numbers and my numbers are about CONFIRMED cases. Your numbers are (educated) conjectures about total cases, confirmed and unconfirmed.

The proposition to put right in the center the way the video does correctly and accurately is the conclusion that vaccination is VERY powerful against Covid.

Her numbers are accurate in the way she characterized them and stated them.
Her calculations are accurate the way she did them.
Her results are accurate and important.
Her conclusion is true.

[Celerity]

64. Only accurate for an fundamentally incorrect amount of cases, and tbh, not even then, as she also

used the wrong population figure for the US.

SHE was the one claiming to be 'really fucking good at numbers'. It helps to use more accurate data sets. Anyone can bang out simple calculations on a calculator.

[Fla Dem]

71. According to the John Hopkins Covid 19 dashboard, as of right now, there have been

41,309,788 Covid-19 cases reported in the United States.

COVID-19 Dashboard
by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University (JHU)

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

These numbers are based on actual reporting, not a mathematical modeling study. I find it difficult to believe that the number reported are, according to you, less than half of the actual cases. If there has been at least 100 million cases or more as you state, you're talking about 1/3 of the American population of 333,331,343. That means one in every 3 people you know or meet has, or has had Covid. I'm finding that difficult to get my arms around. In the almost 2 years of Covid virus, thankfully I've only known of 2 individuals who have contacted Covid and none that have died from it.

I do know there are delays in reporting. Florida for example only reports their numbers once a week on Fridays. So 6 out of the seven days in a week the total number is lacking Florida data. When they do report on Friday they include their entire case count for the whole week, not just Fridays.

But even with similar reporting delays from other states that would not account for the difference between the 41.3 million cases reported and a theorized case count of 100 million.

[Celerity]

84. Tens of millions of cases were never reported, tested or even known

especially if they were asymptomatic.

This has been known (the undercounting) since the beggining of the pandemic. It is the most basic of immunological science.

If you actually believe that the total number of actual COVID cases in the US is anywhere near 41 million, I have a bridge to sell you. Great view of the Thames. I will even toss in a DU discount.

[Crunchy Frog]

88. I know of multiple households where everyone got sick,

but only one person got tested. I also know that there were many, many people early on who had it, like my step sister, but weren't tested because the tests simply weren't there.

During the first surge in NY, with the testing shortages, they were pretty much only testing people who were sick enough to be hospitalized. There were way more people who had it but weren't tested.

This is a pretty well recognized phenomenon in public health. They don't get their yearly flu counts from the number of positive tests, they have a process they use to estimate the number of cases.

If you don't believe me, please check this out from the CDC.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burden.html

[Fla Dem]

91. I appreciat your response,

I don't doubt for a minute there are many more cases, than those officially reported. However even with early unreported cases and those now unreported, to say there are more than twice as many unreported cases as reported cases just seems to me to be a bridge too far.

[Crunchy Frog]

92. Did you click on the link? The CDC itself estimates 120 million cases as of last May.

Are you saying that the CDC estimates are a bridge to far?

[Fla Dem]

93. Nope didn't do that. My bad.

[Ms. Toad]

53. The numbers are correct, but the context is not.

Those are snapshots which represent what was, in the good old days. The past, especially when you are discussing what happens to those vaccinated, is not predictive of the future (i.e. it can't tell you your chance of getting infected).

COVID has been around 19 months. Vaccines have been around for 8 months, and fully available for only 5 months. On May 1, the CDC chose to stop uniformly tracking asymptomatic or mild COVID cases in the unvaccinated - so the breakthrough cases known to the CDC since May are largely those in individuals who were hospitalized or died; the remaining are simply reported as COVID cases (i.e. they are in the 1/8 - but are not, by and large, counted specifically as breakthrough cases.) Because of this, much of the data about breakthrough cases was gathered when cases were low, mitigation (social distancing, masking, etc.) were in play, and Delta was barely known, since routine tracking of breakthrough cases stopped in May.

So you are comparing 19 months of relatively complete data for unvaccinated individuals with 5-8 months of much more incomplete data for vaccinated people.

Yes - vaccinations are a fantastic tool. I was vaccinated as soon as the vaccine was available for my group - and will get the booster as soon as recommended.

No - vaccines are not the be-all, end-all, nor are they as protective as this misleading use of numbers represents. They need to be combined with masking and social distancing.


* My employee (fully vaccinated and extremely careful) tested positive this morning (likely infected by her children who just started back to school - the only people she doesnt' mask around)
* Prior to the first day of classes, my employee and I were collectively exposed 3 times - twice by people who were fully vaccinated
* In the same week as those exposures, my nephew-in-law (also fully vaccinated) came down with COVID

There are a lot more breakthrough cases out there than are being reported as breakthrough cases.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

55. Yes, correct even if will shift a bit in time. But the BIG SIGNAL is that the vaccines work well.

And your other point that vaccines are not 100% is valid too.

So many people, especially MAGAts, want 100% or nothing.

[Ms. Toad]

60. The problem is that using those numbers gives a false sense of security

to people who are vaccinated who want to toss the mask.

These people are contributing to the current surge because:

(1) they are still vulnerable and are ignoring it,

(2) when they do catch it they discount the symptoms as something else (my employee was sure it was ragweed allergies; one of other exposures from a vaccinated individual thought it was just a cold, and the other thought it was just a headche, and

(3) because they discount the symptoms they continue to participate in society - often unmasked (both of the vaccinated exposures I mentioned in the prior post were individuals who were unmasked; the first a day before the school mask mandate was imposed, the second was unmasked in violation of the mandate because he was vaccinates so he didn't believe he needed to be vaccinated). A vaccinated individual with COVID is every bit as contagious as an unvaccinated individual with COVID for the first 5 days.

It is dangerous to use numbers in a way that encourages vaccinated people to ignore public health concerns in lieu of a bit of freedom, when the vaccination rate is so low, and the prevalence of infection so high.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

63. Sure. But the fundamental scourge of the low-info types is the desire for 100% solutions

and the desire to turn some kind of solution into 100% or act as if it were 100%.

So we try to be accurate about figures and reasoning to counter that.

All your points are correct in the general way that you have stated. However if telling people that they by being vaccinated they have greater odds of much better outcomes (such as not dying) by some large factor of 10 to 1 or 40 to 1 or 100 to 1 (depending on scenarios), ... if telling people that makes them think it is 100%, that's not the fault of the person conveying the info, especially when the person often also directly says to wear a mask in some situations, etc.

[questionseverything]

66. She never says, stop masking or stop any other precautions

And while break through cases may not be being tracked, deaths still are

I get you are hyper sensitive about covid but

“Get the fucking shot” is good advice

[Ms. Toad]

70. No one suggested vaccination was not good advice.

I'm taling about the influence such unrealistic minimization of the real risks has on the behavior of people who are vaccinated. Until the vaccination rates go up and the infection rates go down, it needs to be mask up + vax up.

My beef is with misrepresenting the actual risk of getting COVID - which many vaccinated people (including on DU) are using to justify tossing the mask.

A snapshot of the past is not predictive of the future - especially because the way she is calculating numbers is neither an accurate snapshot of the past, nor a realistic comparison of the risk of the risk to vaccinated individuals v. unvaccinated individuals.

Within the last day I have heard:

Why test? She's vaccinated isn't she? (She tested positive this morning)
It's just allergies, since I'm vaccinated. Wrong.
It's just a cold, since I'm vaccinated. Wrong again.
Why wear a mask? there's a .0003% chance of getting COVID if you're vaccinated
It's rare to get a breakthrough case. Wrong.

We need to stop unrealisticlly minimizing the risk of getting a breakthrough COVID case, because even if the case is mild we are every bit as contagious as an unvaccinated person for the first 5 days of the infection which, incidentally, coincides with the period in which we are most likely to believe it is just a cold, or allergies - especially when we are repeatedtly told that the chances of us getting COVID are astronomically low. They're not - and I can list at least 2 dozen folks I know who prove those statistics wrong (none of whom are in the CDC database because the CDC stopped tracking them).

[weissmam]

81. but if a breakthrough case is a head cold

then its worth it ti get the shot , or would you rather take your chance and cover your own hospital bill

[Ms. Toad]

83. Read again, and don't put words in my mouth.

I said absolutely nothing about not getting vaccinated. In fact, I explicitly stated I was vaccinated as soon as my group was eligible, and that I will get a booster as soon as they are recommended.

My concern is that people who ARE vaccinated - who come down with COVID believe that what they have MUST be only a cold, or must be only allergies, because they are being told that their chance of being a breakthrough case is .0003%. Relying on that misperception that breakthrough cases are rare, they go to work, they go out shopping, or they go to concerts with a "harmless cold or allergies" and give COVID to just as many others as if they had never been vaccinated at all - because for the first 5 days they are every bit as contagious as someone with COVID who was not vaccinated.

I am concerned that the gross mischaracterization of the data is encouraging (or being used to justify) behavior by vaccinated individuals that contributes to maintaining the surge, to causing variants, and to spreading COVID to un-vaccinated children.

There are people on DU who have expressly said, "the risk is only .0003% - I'll take my chances without a mask" - ignoring the risk they pose to others.

3 of my last 4 exposures (in less than a month) were from vaccinated individuals who had a "cold" or "allergies," which turned out to be a breakthrough case.

First - I'm talking about exposures that the CDC counts - and which my tank my 9-month sarcoma follow-up scans - and second - that's more exposures in a month than I had during the entire March 2020 - August 14 , 20221 period.

Breakthrough cases are not rare, despite all attempts to paint them as such. We're just playing the Donald Trump game - if we don't count them they don't exist.

[JudyM]

94. This. Plus, these numbers need to be broken down to reflect risk to seniors/impaired immunity

folks and other high-risk folks. The risk of serious illness/death to my 90+ year old mother is much higher than those numbers reflect if she encounters a maskless, asymptomatic carrier in the first several days of their infection, even if that carrier is vaccinated.

[cliffside]

86. + 100 thank you

"COVID has been around 19 months. Vaccines have been around for 8 months, and fully available for only 5 months. On May 1, the CDC chose to stop uniformly tracking asymptomatic or mild COVID cases in the unvaccinated - so the breakthrough cases known to the CDC since May are largely those in individuals who were hospitalized or died; the remaining are simply reported as COVID cases (i.e. they are in the 1/8 - but are not, by and large, counted specifically as breakthrough cases.) Because of this, much of the data about breakthrough cases was gathered when cases were low, mitigation (social distancing, masking, etc.) were in play, and Delta was barely known, since routine tracking of breakthrough cases stopped in May."

[malaise]

3. K & R

Love it

[SamKnause]

4. I wasn't going to watch the video, but I did.

She did an outstanding job of giving the statistics on catching and dying from covid 19 with, or without vaccinations !!!

K&R !!!!!!!!!!!

[Fla Dem]

12. Just to put her numbers in B&W

Unvaxxed
1 in 8 Chance of catching Covid
1 in 61 Chance of dying from Covid

Fully Vaxxed

1 in 13,402 Chance of catching Covid
1 in 86,500 chance of dying from Covid.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

17. +1.. . . nt

[ProudMNDemocrat]

27. Being fully vaccinated is the way to go then.

Why is that not more obvious when the chances lessen considerably than not being vaccinated?

Are those refusing to be vaccinated playing Russian Roulette here? Pardon the pun. But what other analogies are there? Spinning the chamber in hopes that the bullet is not there when the trigger is cocked?

[jmbar2]

5. Whoa! Bravo!!

[Talitha]

6. K&R - - VERY powerful!!!

[Whiskeytide]

7. Some people CAN do their own research!

[rurallib]

8. I love a numbers nerd

[mnhtnbb]

9. But But But

the orange $hitbucket told me I could just put a light rod up my butt and shoot clorox in my arm and swallow horse dewormer and I'd fully recover if I got COVID!!!!

So, I don't need to pay attention to any numbers which you probably made up anyway.

[SergeStorms]

25. Numbers make my head hurt.

Gawd will protec me. I dont neede no numbers hurding ma hed.

[Champp]

10. k and r

[PatSeg]

13. She is incredible

I don't follow people on Twitter, but I am following her.

[mopinko]

14. numbers have a funny way of getting through.

like, srsly, they are processed in a different part of the brain from where the bullshit is stored.
they dont rly talk to each other.

which, conversely, is why liars so love to figure. but...

[KentuckyWoman]

15. I have no clue nor do I care if the numbers are accurate.

The presentation is amazing.
I'm not a tweeter or tic tocker but she's really great. Hope she gets a lot of play.

[NurseJackie]

18. What's his name from "The 11th Hour" should feature that on his show.

[PortTack]

19. I posted her TikTok a couple of days ago...just love her, and yes she knows her numbers

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=15850226

[turbinetree]

20. To Fouled Mouth Mom.....

you should be on CBS, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CNN at the same time.....you were great....thank you....maybe the public should demand that you appear........

[bucolic_frolic]

21. Super Spreader Stat Woman Breakthrough to Reality for Dense Morans!

Maybe the 2 minute Blitzkrieg is the shake up method America needs!

[zipplewrath]

22. Unfortunately

The people that need to be reached, don't understand numbers.

Someone around here is fond of posting a legend that people didn't understand that a 1/3 pound hamburger was bigger than a "quarter pounder".

[dchill]

39. MUCH more relevant than most would think.

Numbers are way too scienc-y. Jesus won't let me get COVID if I stay away from SCIENCE!

[mnhtnbb]

59. Well, duh, because 3 is less than 4.

[TeamProg]

24. Thank you! n/t

[Mr. Evil]

26. I hope she runs for congress.

[Joinfortmill]

31. 👍

[Chakaconcarne]

29. How I was able to substantiate the numbers...Someone could probably do better though

Mostly taken from CDC, but as of 8/30/21:

330 Million people in the US. 41 million COVID cases = 1/8 chance of catching covid in the US.

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#datatracker-home

41 million COVID cases. ~ 670,000 deaths = 1/61 people have died from COVID

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#datatracker-home

173 million fully vaccinated in the US. 12908 breakthrough cases as of Aug 30 = 1/13402 chance of getting COVID if you are fully vaccinated.

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations?country=OWID_WRL

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/breakthrough-cases.html

2432 Deaths from COVID for people who are fully vaccinated, rounded to 2000 because not all of these deaths were related to COVID = 1/86500 chance of dying from COVID if you are fully vaccinated. The Newsweek source references CDC data, but I have not found that yet on their site.

https://www.newsweek.com/over-14k-vaccinated-people-breakthrough-covid-cases-have-been-hospitalized-died-1628508

What I did find on CDC was 7400 deaths and they qualify as above: “FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it’s unclear whether the vaccine was the cause”

So, if 7400 Deaths from COVID for people who are fully vaccinated = 1/23378 chance of dying from COVID if you are fully vaccinated.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html

[neohippie]

49. Not sure your VAERS data is presented correctly

I don't think that the VAERS data refers to people who died from COVID after their vaccinations

I thought it referred to people who died just after being vaccinated, but not necessarily died from the vaccination.

You present it as deaths from COVID, but I may be misunderstanding what that data represents?

Are you sure about how you stated it?

I think many people present that VAERS data as a reason not to get vaccinated as if that vaccine caused all those deaths, so I would like someone who understands it better than I do to explain

[Bernardo de La Paz]

74. VAERS is a self-reporting site. Your skepticism is well advised. . . . . nt

[GopherGal]

80. Relying on your raw numbers, but double-checking some interpretation:

330 million people; 41 million COVID cases =1/8 chance of catching COVID

41 million cases; 670000 deaths = 1/61 of people WHO CATCH COVID die of it.
670000 out of 330 million people ~ 1/493 people in the US die of COVID.

For the vaccinated:
173 million vaccinated; 12908 breakthrough cases = 1/13402 chance of getting COVID if fully vaccinated. (But looking more closely at the CDC page, it appears this is not "cases" but cases requiring hospitalization and/or deaths)
2432 COVID deaths among the vaccinated (I'd use this number rather than round down since this is worst case) = 1/71135 chance of death from COVID if you're fully vaccinated.

Or REALLY worst case: 7400 deaths (for any reason) after being vaccinated = 1/23378 chance of dying if vaccinated.
Cause of death unknown, so those could be due to COVID, could be caused by the vaccine (if you're an outrageously paranoid anti-vaxer), could be due to old age (an important consideration, since the early-vaccinated population was skewed toward older age groups. though honestly I expect such deaths are probably not 100% reported in the VAERS system).

So if vaccinated, your death risk may range somewhere from 1/23378 to 1/71135. Regardless of where exactly it falls in that range, it's still far superior to the 1/493 chance of dying of COVID among the unvaccinated.

[Joinfortmill]

30. She rocks it.

[ananda]

32. Sharing. That was fantastic!

She really lays it out!

[YoshidaYui]

33. following her

You go girl!!

[SammyWinstonJack]

34. Go get the fucking shot!!!!!!

[Stuart G]

35. Everyone has 2 minutes and 16 seconds to watch this...You can watch this while taking a poop

on the toilet. Usually a poop takes longer than 2 minutes and 16 seconds......Is that correct?......................

Or, when eating breakfast in the morning. Or, when shaving or curling your hair. Or, in the middle of arguing about
getting a vaccine, Or, when you take a walk (yes you can listen, you don't need to watch). Or, when having a beer.
Or, In the middle of a set of long commercials. Or, in the middle of waiting for the morning train to take you to work.
Or, in the middle of having some popcorn.... Or in the middle of waving the flag... This very short
video should be required for everyone to watch in the U.S.A............



It is a totally brilliant video..My hat is off to this video & its creator.....

sure,.. some more....

guitar....

How about a wow,

This is the greatest 2 minute and 16 second video ever produced!!!!It will save many lives...Thanks for posting...

Repeat the message of the video.......GO GET THE FUCKING SHOT!!!!!....K & R video, & Fla Dem for posting it....

.....................and ..........Yes...I have had 2 shots..........................

[KPN]

38. Lol.

[Botany]

57. GO GET THE FUCKING SHOT

[SarcasticSatyr]

36. The problem is ...

Anti-vaxers don't believe in math, any more than they believe in covid ...

[Pinback]

40. Fortunately, Jesus died for our sins 2,021 years ago

shortly after the dinosaurs were wiped out by communism, and I’m fully saved, so I don’t need no math, mask, nor say-tanic shot!

[Pinback]

37. Also good information for the vaccinated and terrified

I know several people who are cowering in their homes, fearing that the Delta variant renders their vaccine ineffective. Maybe this would convince some of them to venture out a bit more — although still taking sensible precautions, of course.

I’m being a good deal more cautious now than I was in July as well, and practicing all COVID precautions whenever I venture out of the house. But this information helps us make a more realistic risk assessment than just “OMG, Delta! Stay home!!1!”

Obviously, the immune response is not as strong for those of us in the 65+ cohort as compared to younger and presumably healthier people. But still, your odds of a) catching COVID, b) passing COVID along, and/or c) dying from COVID are MUCH lower if you’ve gotten “the FUCKING shot!”

Amazing video. Is she Katie Porter's niece or something?

[SKKY]

43. That needs to be our new mantra!

"GO GET THE FUCKING SHOT!"

[Cozmo]

44. Hats off!

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

45. Bravo

[Lucky Luciano]

48. Great presentation, but she is measuring some things wrong.

Under her methods, the probability of catching Covid will always go up as time progresses, whereas it should be a roughly static number in either of the cases of being vaccinated, not vaccinated, or have had Covid before.

The probability should me measured over a time frame- “the probability of catching Covid in the next 12 months is…”

[lostnfound]

78. Agree. The lack of a specific time frame is a flaw in her logic

“All cases” and all deaths go back to the beginning, but the post-vaccine breakthroughs reflect a limited period of time (I.e., since January 2021 at the earliest, total vaccinated increasing over time since then).

[smirkymonkey]

50. Brava!

Didn't check her math, but I heartily approve of her message.

[Liberal In Texas]

51. I like her spirit! n/t

[Laurelin]

52. I had trouble believing that billions of shots have been given but she's right!

2.3 billion. That's so amazing.

[markie]

56. oh

[Hamlette]

61. I need aa cigarette, that was good

[BobTheSubgenius]

65. She seems somewhat committed to the premise.

Good on you, Twitter Math Girl!!!

[littlemissmartypants]

67. Her fundamental point that covid is making children orphans.

Because of their idiot parents, who are refusing to get vaccinated, is a point we don't hear enough.

[Botany]

73. And their parents do this stupid as shit too. No masks/no vaccines 30,000 people in a cow pasture

[littlemissmartypants]

76. And they complain about being "sheep" when they are literally corralled in.

[Botany]

77. Actually they are movable pig pens.

80 degrees plus, thunderstorms, 80% humidity, no masks, and no vaccines. Look I feel bad for
the kids who got drug along to this trump Bund rally but I am at the point now of good let them
get sick and die and DON'T USE ANY HOSPITAL BEDS OR ICU SPACE ON THEM.

[littlemissmartypants]

82. I know pigs. Pigs would knock those bike racks over with a push.

I am fine with the pig analogy though. It couldn't have been a fun day unless you like being miserable. And it would totally be in character for the group to be a bunch of grumps.

[Botany]

89. You are right! I was remembering another shot from the same rally where they really had ....

.... groups of people in pig pens.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

75. The shot is free. Funerals are expensive. You can get a few discounts for child funerals. . . . nt

[secondwind]

68. Tell it !!!

[Demovictory9]

69. k&r

[jaxexpat]

72. Oh, doubters. What are our odds of contracting, spreading, dying of covid when 90% are vaccinated?

That's always been the goal. Vaccinate 90% or 99% of the total population. Somewhere in between, doesn't matter for practical purposes. The "pandemic" is history if the targeted coverage of the vaccination regimen remains implemented long enough to effectively halt the generation through evolution of viable mutations. Similarly to Polio and smallpox etc.

That's as sciency as I get. Polynomial magic arguments seem pointless.

[Nevilledog]

79. I was told there would be no math when I signed up for DU.

[Lucky Luciano]

85. There is only a small algebra test, but that's it.

Simply, give a presentation on this topic.

https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0021869314002622?token=6E3753A48052C29738E68468DC8434032894E17548E35397A91E3580E5DAA68CCF2E6EB9104703DCD08E66885BD17D10&originRegion=us-east-1&originCreation=20210915024148

[brewens]

87. One in eight chance of catching COVID if unvaccinated. I know some unvaccinated that are taking

full precautions. I think those are a pretty small percentage of the unvaccinated, but it makes the odds worse for those blowing off all precautions.

[The Jungle 1]

90. Sarcasm alert. She is not a very good house keeper.

She should have skipped math and went to home economics. Those names you are calling me are not very nice.
Smiled through the whole thing. I love strong women.