Does DeSantis have islamophobia? I’m trying to understand why @AroundTheWorld has such a boner for him.
You didn't really answer my question. And I addressed his sentence "Obviously, FL has a somewhat older population" in detail. This sentence makes it seem like that is just a small detail that just needs to be mentioned in passing - when the reality is - as I have shown in detail, with data - that this is the single most important factor that influences death rates. If 10,000,000 people get infected in Florida and 10,000,000 get infected in California (let's assume even age distribution of infection), then 2,100,000 are 65+ in Florida and 1,500,000 in California. That's 600,000 more people per 10,000,000 who are age 65+ - and who have an at least 62 times higher risk of dying of Covid than people who are younger than that. The New York Times claims that 1 in 100 Americans aged 65+ has perished from Covid. If you believe that to be true, then, statistically, assuming equal infection rates, Florida would have to have 6000 more deaths per 10,000,000 (or 60 more deaths per 100,000) than California. This has nothing to do with whatever DeSantis would have said or politics or measures or mandates - assuming all else is equal, that would be the expectation based on how deadly Covid is for the respective age groups. But rather than adjusting for age, all he does is mention the most important factor for the calculation in passing. Why do you keep ignoring that? Because it doesn't fit your ideological leanings? The truth is, when you adjust for age, California does no better than Florida, at all. But then how do you justify all the mandates? They don't seem to have made any difference whatsoever. The infection rates are the same.
Your misinterpretation of what is a very clear statement. It is obvious has an older population. And the doctor also says that vaccinations is an important factor (far fewer people in FL have vaccinated). He is a medical doctor and so treating a medical problem medically is clearly his focus. Your political bias is to minimize the importance of vaccinations. If more people in FL vaccinated... especially more older people, then FL would have less COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths. Do you wish to argue against that?
Umm, no. I love it when leftists try to twist the truth and put words into people's mouths, only to be proven wrong immediately, by facts, in black and white. See above. Now do you wish to continue to argue against the fact that more old people = more death from Covid? Can you follow my math? I am asking you to at least try.
Again more old unvaccinated people, more hospitalized and dead people. The stats clearly show that. But you continue to argue against that. Because politics.
WTF are you even talking about. Any unbiased reader of this thread can see that I brought facts and data, which you are ignoring. Instead, you claim that I argue against vaccination, even though I said the opposite and argued FOR vaccination. Either you are a complete moron or you are completely disingenuous. I will make one more attempt: I am not arguing against vaccination, so stop saying that. Why are you so opposed to trying to understand the impact of each of these factors? Age and vaccination. But rather than conflating the two, it is important to understand how much each contributes. Agreeing that age is the most important risk factor for Covid death shouldn't even be controversial. It literally is just facts and data. I posted all of it. When you go through the data, you see that all the mandates and measures in California did not lead to a different infection rate than Florida had it. That's just a fact. It's also a fact that Florida had a higher death rate. I am not disputing that. I did show, however, that this higher death rate is fully explained by the difference in percentage of 65+ aged people in the respective states. That doesn't mean I am against vaccination. It just means that when you adjust for age, Florida doesn't have a meaningfully higher death rate than California. My conclusion from both states having the same infection rate is that the mask and lockdown mandates had no positive effect. It doesn't mean I am against vaccination. I assume that each state's death rates would be even lower if especially the 65+ population had a higher vaccination/booster rate in the respective state. The younger people are, the less impact a vaccination has on the respective death rates, simply because younger people do not die that often from Covid anyway. Are you aware that the average age of a person who dies from Covid is exactly the same as the average age of any person dying?
You are doing the same exact thing you are accusing the doctor doing... you are understating the effect of vaccination has on hospitalization and death rates for your political reasons by claiming the age of the victims are the most important factor.
No, you start with age. This really is the most important factor. That is just a medical/mathematical fact. I posted the CDC statistics, I didn't make those up. That's also why I keep saying that the older you are, the more strongly I would urge you to take the vaccine (and the flipside of this is that I have my doubts whether the vaccine makes a lot of sense for children). Then you can continue the calculation by looking at vaccination rates and assumed efficacy of those vaccinations and try to calculate the difference the different vaccination rates made. I am happy to see you make the same small effort I made to show the impact of age on death rates also for vaccination/boosters. I am willing to work with you on this. Maybe we both learn something. I mean this sincerely.
Maybe this helps to visualize the difference in risk of dying from Covid, depending on age. It really isn't a small difference. It's a massive difference. https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/covid-pandemic-mortality-risk-estimator (by the way, this risk estimator was clearly built before Omicron - the risk of death is much, much lower than shown there with Omicron, across all age groups) The biggest risk factors are age, obesity, pre-existing diseases. And we have learned by now that being a man and having blood group A, for instance, also increase your risk a bit (bad for me, both ). There are other risk factors, but age beats all of them, by far. The vaccination lowers the risk you already have. That's why I am saying you have to look at age first, before analyzing the impact of vaccination. If your risk was 0.001 % to begin with (see this Nature article about the incredibly low risk for children to die of Covid), then if the vaccination decreases your risk by 90 %...ok, great, but...? Remember, the vaccination doesn't give sterile immunity, so the initially often heralded "you are protecting others" argument is not true. But if you are 85 and your risk of dying from Covid if you get it is 20 %, then hell yes, you want to take the vaccination and the booster to decrease that risk by 90% or whatever it is!
And back to the thread, I know from people who are close to him that DeSantis isn't a moron - he looked at the data, and he looks at the data all the time.
The variable is the vaccination or not. Older people choosing to not vaccinate have much higher hospitalization and death rates. The above is not arguable. And its not driven by politics. But political efforts to not promote vaccinations (let alone mandate vaccinations) has led to increased hospitalizations and deaths.
Look, I know you have been ignoring everything I wrote, maybe because you don't know how to answer it. But no, according to the data I can find, there is no significant difference between California and Florida in vaccination rates of people aged 65+ (where it really matters, as I have shown in previous posts). Matter of fact, the "fully vaccinated" percentage in Florida is higher than in California in the age group 65+. It's lower in younger age groups, but as I was hopefully able to show with the CDC statistics and the Economist risk estimator, your base risk of dying is just so much lower when you are younger that even a close to 100 % efficacy of the vaccine to keep you from dying matters less statistically, because very few would have died anyway. I don't know if the data is really accurate, because to be honest, it seems really high to me, but here you go: Source: https://www.mayoclinic.org/coronavirus-covid-19/vaccine-tracker I am actually not the one arguing based on politics here. As any reasonable neutral observer would see, I have been providing data and facts, whereas you seem to be very entrenched in your views. I believe I have shown that the higher death rate in Florida, compared to California, is entirely explained by the fact that Florida has a significantly higher percentage of people aged 65+. Those are the ones who are most at risk. But in this age group, Florida actually has a higher "fully vaccinated" percentage than California.
I think what he is saying is being misinterpreted. If he said "you cannot get it again if you had it", that would be wrong. Just as wrong as saying you cannot get it if you have been vaccinated. We probably all know cases which immediately disprove either statement. But I read what he said as "you aren't going to die from it if you get it a second time if you survived it once" - this would also not be 100 % true, but it would be at least as true as saying "you aren't going to die from it if you are fully vaccinated" (also not 100 % true, as we know - see, e.g., Colin Powell). It is well known that natural immunity (having survived an actual infection) provides at least as good a protection from severe illness as does the vaccination. Is the CDC or anyone disputing that? By the way, Bill Gates also acknowledged that today.
Here is his quote: “So, here we are now, and the CDC is saying every single person in a school needs to wear a mask all day, even if you’re vaccinated, even if you’ve recovered from COVID, which by the way — you are immune if you’ve recovered from COVID. The CDC doesn’t admit that, but it’s true,” he said. How can you read that any other way than him saying if have recovered from COVID, you're immune? You know as well as I that people have experienced multiple infections from COVID. For someone who will most likely eventually run for President it's an ignorant comment.
He probably meant immune from death by Covid. Many people use the words in that way. I am not in his head, so maybe he just misspoke or said something stupid. But that would make more sense (even though still not entirely correct) than saying you are immune from getting it again, which is so obviously not true that it seems implausible that that's what he meant. That said, he wouldn't be the first person running for President who made an ignorant comment. https://www.politifact.com/factchec...den-overstates-effectiveness-vaccines-preven/
Just weird how you're 'choosing' to read it that way even though they weren't talking about COVID deaths. They were discussing mask mandates.
The way I read it, he was saying that the immunity from natural infection is at least as good as that from vaccinations. He seems to make a dig at the CDC, which he seems to insinuate portray that differently? I don't know if that's true. Edit: https://thehill.com/opinion/healthc...ng-natural-immunity-legislators-should-follow Apparently the CDC never acknowledged that before this report, according to this article? That would be absurd. I guess that must have been what he was referring to.
