Community Chat

[on the bay]

I understood what you meant @KarenQVC.

It's common sense and I think everyone really did get it.

(even if they wanted to pretend they didn't). I know you got it too @Porcelain

[Lipstickdiva]

---

@Drythe wrote:

---

@Lipstickdiva wrote:

If 2 weeks after the second vaccination, everyone still has to wear a mask and socially distance, exactly what was the point?  If nothing is going to change, why would people want to get the vaccine? 

---

@Lipstickdiva 

Wearing a mask and socially distancing, Because, obviously ‘everyone’ isn’t vaccinated.

---

@Drythe , I'm talking about once the majority of people are vaccinated.  Not everyone is ever going to be vaccinated.  

I think the powers that be are missing the boat by continually stating even after vaccination masks will still have to be worn, people will still have to social distance, etc., because if that is the case, I think that is going to discourage even more people from getting vaccinated because it seems pointless.  

We have "experts" who don't even agree on this.  I've heard some say we are looking at a normal summer and then we have others stating we'll be wearing masks into 2022. 

[Lipstickdiva]

I saw yesterday an article about California and Florida both having just about the same infection rate despite the fact that both states handled things very differently with California having stricked lockdowns and mask mandates and Florida being a free for all.  

Same goes for South Dakota and Connecticut.  SD was a free for all and CT had strict mandates.  Both had nearly identical infection rates.

[suzyQ3]

---

@Lipstickdiva wrote:

I saw yesterday an article about California and Florida both having just about the same infection rate despite the fact that both states handled things very differently with California having stricked lockdowns and mask mandates and Florida being a free for all.  

Same goes for South Dakota and Connecticut.  SD was a free for all and CT had strict mandates.  Both had nearly identical infection rates.

---

The problem is that no two states are so similar that we can definitely state that one approach is necessarily better. @Lipstickdiva

[RedTop]

@Kalli 

Based on the descriptions of how the 2 of them have lived inside their home, alone, for the last year, she will never be at ease, even with supposed immunity to Covid.   

[CrazyDaisy]

---

@suzyQ3 wrote:

---

@Lipstickdiva wrote:

I saw yesterday an article about California and Florida both having just about the same infection rate despite the fact that both states handled things very differently with California having stricked lockdowns and mask mandates and Florida being a free for all.  

Same goes for South Dakota and Connecticut.  SD was a free for all and CT had strict mandates.  Both had nearly identical infection rates.

---

The problem is that no two states are so similar that we can definitely state that one approach is necessarily better. @Lipstickdiva

---

Yet when you basically get the same results, neither can be wrong.  So those promoting opening up things are just as right as those wanting everything shut down.  Who would have thought....

[pitdakota]

---

@Lipstickdiva wrote:

I saw yesterday an article about California and Florida both having just about the same infection rate despite the fact that both states handled things very differently with California having stricked lockdowns and mask mandates and Florida being a free for all.  

Same goes for South Dakota and Connecticut.  SD was a free for all and CT had strict mandates.  Both had nearly identical infection rates.

_______________________________________________________

@Lipstickdiva, people know I have posted for years when comparing data from state to state, county to county, etc. to be very careful when people are just talking about raw numbers.  In epidemiology it is required to use rates or some constant such as a trend in a moving 7 day average.

 Here is the latest data I have if one is to compare these states:

Fla:  21.01 (avg. new daily per 100,000)

        8.63% test positivity 

        11.72% population fully vaccinated

Ca:  8.72 (avg. new daily per 100,000)

        7.06 % test positivity 

        10.68% population fully vaccinated

So when reviewing the data, Fla has a higher number of new daily cases avg per 100,000 and a higher test positivity rate than Ca.  It is also noted that Fla reports a slightly higher percentage of their population fully vaccinated so that would not account for Florida having a higher incidence and case rate than California.  

By the way, the data for South Dakota:

13.05 (avg new daily per 100,00)

11.64% test positivity

15.56% population fully vaccinated

South Dakota is not doing nearly as well as either California or Florida.  But I would be hesitant to compare South Dakota with another state unless it is more in line with the overall population for a wide open state that doesn't have dense population throughout the state.  It might be more in line to compare South Dakota to Montana, Wyoming, etc. 

Wyoming:

10.4 (avg new daily per 100,000)

7.01% test positivity 

13.93% population fully vaccinated

---

[pitdakota]

---

@suzyQ3 wrote:

---

@Lipstickdiva wrote:

I saw yesterday an article about California and Florida both having just about the same infection rate despite the fact that both states handled things very differently with California having stricked lockdowns and mask mandates and Florida being a free for all.  

Same goes for South Dakota and Connecticut.  SD was a free for all and CT had strict mandates.  Both had nearly identical infection rates.

---

The problem is that no two states are so similar that we can definitely state that one approach is necessarily better. @Lipstickdiva

---

______________________________________________________

@suzyQ3, when that happens it is almost a sure sign that it is a "bent" perspective of someone trying to "twist" data to make some kind of point that can't be backed up by the "real" data. True public health individuals and articles will always use consistent data that is used whether it is covid, TB, etc. 

That is why it is so important to use rates, rolling 7 day averages adjusted for population, test positivity rates, etc.  Those can be compared but one still needs to look for other factors that might account for a difference in that comparison. 

And it is never a good idea in epidemiology to compare such a densely populated small state to a sparsely population large area state when it comes to comparing any type of data for a contagious disease.  When one stops and just thinks about it, it is obvious why.  So it is pure folly to compare South Dakota to Conn. 

[Drythe]

@pitdakota 

Hello, my rational friend.

[Lali1]

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

---

@suzyQ3 wrote:

---

@Lipstickdiva wrote:

I saw yesterday an article about California and Florida both having just about the same infection rate despite the fact that both states handled things very differently with California having stricked lockdowns and mask mandates and Florida being a free for all.  

Same goes for South Dakota and Connecticut.  SD was a free for all and CT had strict mandates.  Both had nearly identical infection rates.

---

The problem is that no two states are so similar that we can definitely state that one approach is necessarily better. @Lipstickdiva

---

Yet when you basically get the same results, neither can be wrong.  So those promoting opening up things are just as right as those wanting everything shut down.  Who would have thought....

---

You're right! Only problem is the places that locked down everything have many more of their residents suffering from lost jobs, depression, lost businesses etc.