3 ms·
I would agree. I was a big mask wearer from the start. The baloney about N95's not working for some reason against THIS airborne hazard (with lots of great evi
by tempnow987 5y ago
I would agree.
I was a big mask wearer from the start. The baloney about N95's not working for some reason against THIS airborne hazard (with lots of great evidence of efficacy against other airborne viruses) was ridiculous.
The other issue - despite the case rates / volume of data that SHOULD be publically available, these scientists WILL NOT quantify stuff numerically.
Fatality rate risk by age / gender / race tables should be trivial to pull up for the US. Add in vaccine status once you have it. With the number of cases / size of data / money spent it's just crazy.
Same thing with vaccine efficacy against variants. The math on these things should be pretty straightforward. Look at fatalities from covid, ask if they were vaccinated, publish some numbers. Just backwards looking at rates by county I wasn't seeing huge differences with some variants.
- seoaeu 5y agoI'd love to see this data as well. However, there's nothing trivial about collecting and validating all this information. The US has thousands of individual healthcare providers across the country that all have to coordinate to produce it. Also remember that the numbers might be unflattering for certain government leaders who've taken the pandemic less seriously. Florida was particularly notorious in trying to suppress Covid data [0]. [0]: https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/584909-university-of-florida-researchers-pressured-to-destroy-covid-19-data/ https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/584909-university-o...
- tempnow987 5y agoThe case rates and fatality rates are so high it should be possible to come up with some REASONABLE tables just using NY or California. There is some weird sensitivity to even releasing age banded rates on a consistent basis. This makes me skeptical of the reporting here.