easyrider16 wrote: ↑Dec 7th, '20, 12:25
2nd mask mandate? haven't masks been mandated the entire time?
In any event, the explanation is simple. During the summer everyone was going outside and better able to social distance. In the winter, more people are inside breathing the same air as one another, and that is the principle way this thing spreads. That's what all the authorities have been saying for a long time - during the fall and into winter, we'd have a spike as more people were going to be inside. This is the same reason flu season starts in the Fall and usually ends in the Spring. The really big spike at the end of November and into December is obviously due to family get togethers over thanksgiving. It will get worse as more gather for Christmas.
edit: ah, I see. there was another mandate on 11/6. That seems unnecessary at this point, but I see why he did it. People have been advised to wear masks since like March. Mandating it probably didn't result in much more compliance than you were already seeing, which was quite high from what I could tell. But the spike in numbers requires politicians to look like they're doing something.
First mandate was indoor only. Second was everywhere else. Coronavirus all types spike in the late fall and early winter.
Attachments
coronaall.JPG (36.88 KiB) Viewed 891 times
Live, Ski or Die Trying!!!
"Life is not measured by the numbers of breaths we take, but by the ski runs that take our breath away."
SKI THE EAST!!!!!!
37 days in '10
35 Days in '09
35 Days in '08
Pretty sure we are on a mask break. The Biden 100 day mandatory mask mandate kicks off on Jan 21. We all need to do our part to help make this plan a success so take a break for Uncle Joe.
Guy in Shorts wrote: ↑Dec 7th, '20, 14:39
Pretty sure we are on a mask break. The Biden 100 day mandatory mask mandate kicks off on Jan 21. We all need to do our part to help make this plan a success so take a break for Uncle Joe.
Funny you mention that, Coronavirus case usually dwindle out starting in late Jan per the above graph. So Joe's 100 day mask mandate may not be the reason of the decline.
Live, Ski or Die Trying!!!
"Life is not measured by the numbers of breaths we take, but by the ski runs that take our breath away."
SKI THE EAST!!!!!!
37 days in '10
35 Days in '09
35 Days in '08
Joe's mask mandate is not going to change much. Anyone who gives a sh!t is already wearing a mask. Those who don't won't start just because Joe says so. Still, a leader should lead people toward safety, not off a cliff like the orange clown.
The numbers demonstrate that people gather for the holidays and don't wear masks when they do it. Once the holidays pass and numbers spike, people will likely be more compliant and numbers will come down. Hopefully.
Oh and Pfizer / Moderna declined Trump’s Vaccine Summit invite. Mark my words the vaccine summit will be disastrous for the vaccine candidates if Trump is doing the talking. He would be wise to let Fauci lead the summit.
Trump administration officials passed when Pfizer offered in late summer to sell the U.S. more vaccine doses.
Dec. 7, 2020, 4:05 p.m. ET2 hours ago
2 hours ago
By Sharon LaFraniere, Katie Thomas and Noah Weil
Trump administration officials passed when Pfizer offered in late summer to sell the U.S. government additional doses of its Covid-19 vaccine, according to people familiar with the matter. Now Pfizer may not be able provide more of its vaccine to the United States until next June because of its commitments to other countries, they said.
As the administration scrambles to try to purchase more doses of the vaccine, President Trump plans on Tuesday to sign an executive order “to ensure that United States government prioritizes getting the vaccine to American citizens before sending it to other nations,” according to a draft statement and a White House official, though it was not immediately clear what force the president’s executive order would carry.
That included whether it would expand the U.S. supply of doses beyond what is spelled out in existing federal contracts.
The vaccine being produced by Pfizer and its German partner, BioNTech, is a two-dose treatment, meaning that 100 million doses is enough to vaccinate only 50 million Americans. The vaccine is expected to receive authorization for emergency use in the U.S. as soon as this weekend, with another vaccine, developed by Moderna, also likely to be approved for emergency use soon.
Britain plans to begin a vaccination drive on Tuesday using the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, making it the first Western nation to start mass vaccinations.
On Nov. 11 — two days after Pfizer first announced early results indicating that its vaccine was more than 90 percent effective — the European Union announced that it had finalized a supply deal with Pfizer and BioNTech for 200 million doses, a deal they began negotiating in months earlier. Shipments could begin by the end of the year, and the contract includes an option for 100 million more doses.
Asked if the Trump administration had missed a crucial chance over the summer to snap up more doses for Americans, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services said, “We are confident that we will have 100 million doses of Pfizer’s vaccine as agreed to in our contract, and beyond that, we have five other vaccine candidates.”
In a statement, Pfizer said that “any additional doses beyond the 100 million are subject to a separate and mutually acceptable agreement,” and that “the company is not able to comment on any confidential discussions that may be taking place with the U.S. government.”
The decision to issue the executive order was reported earlier by Fox News.
I don't really understand why the US government would decline to purchase additional doses of the vaccine when given the opportunity. Why not just purchase everything they are willing to sell? And why no explanation whatsoever for the decision to decline the purchase? It smells fishy to me. This "America First" executive order he's going to sign sounds like a piece of political theater, and likely won't work if Pfizer already has commitments to sell the vaccine elsewhere. You can't cancel valid private contracts ex post facto via executive order.
Just conjecture, but I wonder if this has anything to do with the very public dispute between Trump's claims about Pfizer/operation warp speed and Pfizer's response.
easyrider16 wrote: ↑Dec 8th, '20, 08:47Just conjecture, but I wonder if this has anything to do with the very public dispute between Trump's claims about Pfizer/operation warp speed and Pfizer's response.
Maybe, but Trump didn't purchase any more from Moderna and they are part of OWS ...
So maybe it's just a legitimate attempt to spread out purchases among each of the vaccine candidates equally? Not put all eggs in one basket, so to speak? That seems shortsighted. Seems to me you should take everything you can get from the first to produce something safe and effective, as that would be the quickest way to get this distributed to as many as possible.
easyrider16 wrote: ↑Dec 8th, '20, 10:30
So maybe it's just a legitimate attempt to spread out purchases among each of the vaccine candidates equally? Not put all eggs in one basket, so to speak? That seems shortsighted. Seems to me you should take everything you can get from the first to produce something safe and effective, as that would be the quickest way to get this distributed to as many as possible.
This was my guess. Seems shortsighted now, but had Moderna and Pfizer's vaccine went bust and J&J / AZ vaccine been a homerun .. putting all the eggs in one basket may not have been wise. The cost of buying twice or three times the amount though is negligible so I don't get why only 100m from each and not double or triple?
Yeah I mean the strategy would make sense if Pfizer hadn't offered to sell them more *after* the study on effectiveness came out, and yet they still declined. Like you said, the cost is negligible, why not just snap up the offer since it was available? If we end up buying too many it's not like there aren't 7 billion or so other people who might be interested in buying some off our hands.
Huh? Unless I'm reading that wrong, it does not seem to correlate with the CDC map. Massachusetts on the Fox News map shows 0 cases per 100k, while on the CDC page it shows 60.9.
