2021/2022 School Year

Does it make sense to you that people get vaccinated to build immunity, only to end up getting sick—or dying—from that exact same disease? 🕺
They’re supposed to have a much higher level of protection.
If I go through the trouble of getting a shot, I’m operating under the assumption that I won't face severe illness or death from it. 🕺

What’s the threshold for herd immunity? 70% or 80%? If that's the case, what was going on in Israel before they started rolling out those third boosters? Now I see their infection numbers are down to about 300, but back in the summer, the infection and death rates were massive.

Nicholas King said:I’m not entirely convinced that universities are even offering a full hybrid model—you know, both in-person and online—where a student actually has the luxury of choosing which one to attend.

Well, I suppose it really depends on the situation. If a university has an overwhelming number of students but limited physical space, they might still be running hybrid lectures, where some students attend in the classroom while others tune in from home via computer. As long as the lecture hall has the necessary tech setup, it works.

In my specific department, though, it isn't quite like that; we aren't exactly dealing with massive crowds—you could almost say it feels like a breeze through an empty hallway😬—but we did have a discussion regarding whether we should offer that flexibility this academic year for students facing health issues, isolation, or similar circumstances. Some of the professors were quite firmly against it, whereas others argued strongly that we should support our students however possible. In the end, much like many other things within the higher education sector, the decision was left somewhat decentralized—essentially, everyone was told to proceed according to their own judgment. ☕

slystag4 said:If the federal government and the state can't even force doctors to get vaccinated, how on earth do they expect to force you to vaccinate your child?

Do we even know how many doctors are refusing the shots?
They aren't being coerced, right?
It’s a total contradiction.
Honestly, I bet quite a few of them just flush their doses down the toilet whenever they get the chance. If it were up to me, I’d probably do the same for my whole family.

Once they start trying to shove needles into kids' sinuses every single day—or heaven forbid, somewhere else (China actually tried that)—or when they start imposing lockdowns (like in Oz or Art), standing your ground against all that pressure is going to feel a lot more intuitive.
It's a complete non-starter.

And all of this happens while the media is firing on all cylinders and teachers and professors are constantly pointing fingers at you...

It isn't as if they were coerced.

slystag4 said:It isn't as if they were coerced.

It's the truth—everyone stepped up voluntarily, whether they were rolling up their sleeves or just helping out where they could.🍿

slystag4: I guess if you ask me, it’s just one of those things where everything feels a bit more intense than it actually is! Maybe? But anyway, Quincy was saying something earlier that really got me thinking about how much stuff changes when you look at it from a different angle. It’s wild! I mean, seriously, it’s kind of crazy how we perceive things, right? I don't know, I might be overthinking it, but it feels like such a huge deal!

I guess I'm just going to jump right in here! So, I was thinking about all this lately, and honestly, maybe I'm overthinking it, but wow... there is just so much to unpack! It’s kind of wild when you really sit down and look at the details, isn't it? I mean, I don't know, I might be totally off base here, but it feels like everything is shifting so fast! Anyway, I just wanted to share that little thought with everyone. Hope you're all having a wonderful day! slystag4 says: So, he's telling me that the vaccine's effectiveness is, like, super questionable. I mean, I guess he really thinks that, right? It's just his take on it, I suppose!

So, what's that efficiency rating actually looking like? What is he saying about it?

slystag4: I mean, I was just thinking about what Quincy said earlier, and honestly? It’s such a good point. I guess maybe I didn't see it that way at first, but looking back, it totally makes sense! I'm just so excited to dive deeper into this. It feels like we're finally getting somewhere, you know? Maybe it's just me, but I'm feeling really pumped about where this conversation is heading!

hiddendriver34 said:😁

Why ask when you already know the answer?

The logic being used here is basically this:

In Portugal, 90% of the population got vaccinated.

Meanwhile, 58% of the COVID deaths in Portugal were among vaccinated people.

Conclusion: You actually have a better shot at dying from COVID if you're vaccinated than if you aren't.

Yeah. 😁

I mean, if you ask me, that little flaw? It’s probably going to be hanging around for a long, long time. I guess we'll just have to see, but my gut tells me it's here to stay.

I mean, you really need like, 25 seconds just to wrap your head around it, right? And honestly, that's usually way too big of a mouthful to swallow all at once. I guess!

jadetinker85 said:Does it make sense to you that people get vaccinated to build immunity, only to end up getting sick—or dying—from that exact same disease? 🕺
They’re supposed to have a much higher level of protection.
If I go through the trouble of getting a shot, I’m operating under the assumption that I won't face severe illness or death from it. 🕺

What’s the threshold for herd immunity? 70% or 80%? If that's the case, what was going on in Israel before they started rolling out those third boosters? Now I see their infection numbers are down to about 300, but back in the summer, the infection and death rates were massive.

Yeah!

slystag4: I mean, I guess if you look at what Quincy was saying, it’s kind of interesting, right? Maybe? It feels like we're all just circling the same idea, but I don't know! I honestly think there's more to it than that, though. Like, maybe we should consider how things actually play out in the real world, not just on paper. It’s just a thought! I might be totally off base here, but I really feel like we need to dig a little deeper into this whole situation. It’s such a wild topic, isn't it?!

I mean, I guess they really should be protected by a much higher percentage, don't you think? Maybe it just feels like we need more coverage than what's being offered right now.

What exactly does a "higher" percentage even mean in this context? I guess I might be overthinking it, but I'm a little confused!
Greater than what percentage, I guess? Maybe you could be a bit more specific there!

So, what’s the deal with that whole "should" phrasing? Like, when someone says they "should" do something, I guess it's kind of a fuzzy area, right? It’s not quite a "must," but it's definitely more than just a "maybe." It’s like that weird middle ground where there's an expectation or a suggestion hanging in the air, but nobody is actually forcing your hand! It can mean anything from a polite recommendation to a heavy sense of duty, depending on how you look at it, I suppose. It's such a tricky little phrase!
Where exactly does it say that, though? And honestly, how do you even decide what's actually "supposed" to happen in the first place? I mean, how do we even figure out the right way to go about it? It’s all a bit fuzzy, I guess! 🤔

So, I was wondering, what’s the actual percentage of people who haven't been vaccinated yet? And like, how are the Buggs doing compared to the Englishman? I guess it would be interesting to see those numbers! 🤔

briskjackal5

So, I saw this in the news earlier—either the Morning Post or some local rag—saying that even after November 8th, they’re planning to stay online that week. Apparently, though, the kids in grades 1 through 4 would be back in class in person
over in NYC.

Larry Walker24 said:So, I saw this in the news earlier—either the Morning Post or some local rag—saying that even after November 8th, they’re planning to stay online that week. Apparently, though, the kids in grades 1 through 4 would be back in class in person
over in NYC.

A total disaster. Kids are going to end up protecting the very people who couldn't care less about them, let alone anyone else. So, dear parents—and I guess we should include the grandparents who refused to get vaccinated—you are directly responsible for this shift to remote learning. It must feel great, I'm sure. 🙂

That’s just not what it says at all.

It actually says this:
The Los Angeles Unified School District has confirmed to the city administration that they will follow the directive issued at the federal level, which means all students will shift to remote learning for two days. However, should there be an extension to this period of online instruction beyond November 8th, Washington, D.C. has prepared a contingency plan.
- In the event that there is a necessity to extend remote learning into the week of November 8th, schools will likely welcome back the younger students—those in grades one through four—while the older kids will continue their studies online, according to officials from the city.

Nobody actually knows yet if there will even be an extension or not; this text is merely outlining what NYC plans to do IF the federal government decides to prolong the remote learning mandate...

nimbleranger17 said:That’s just not what it says at all.

It actually says this:
The Los Angeles Unified School District has confirmed to the city administration that they will follow the directive issued at the federal level, which means all students will shift to remote learning for two days. However, should there be an extension to this period of online instruction beyond November 8th, Washington, D.C. has prepared a contingency plan.
- In the event that there is a necessity to extend remote learning into the week of November 8th, schools will likely welcome back the younger students—those in grades one through four—while the older kids will continue their studies online, according to officials from the city.

Nobody actually knows yet if there will even be an extension or not; this text is merely outlining what NYC plans to do IF the federal government decides to prolong the remote learning mandate...

Just remember—one day they’re saying "kids won't be online,"

then the next day: "actually, they're online."

So I'm worried this is all just smoke and mirrors and we're definitely going remote.

I mean, if they weren't planning on remote learning, why would they even mention it?

They're totally prepping everyone for the remote life.

Look, I’ll say it again just to be absolutely clear: there isn't a single shred of evidence anywhere—not in the official bulletins or the fine print—that mentions extending remote learning, unless you count those two ladies making noise about it.

slystag4 said:A total disaster. Kids are going to end up protecting the very people who couldn't care less about them, let alone anyone else. So, dear parents—and I guess we should include the grandparents who refused to get vaccinated—you are directly responsible for this shift to remote learning. It must feel great, I'm sure. 🙂

How can you claim kids are only protecting selfish people when 80 out of last week's 177 deaths were vaccinated?
Kids protect the vaccinated too.

hiddendriver34 said:Let me break it down for you.

The whole point of vaccinating is to keep people out of the hospital, off ventilators, and away from death. That means you prioritize the folks most likely to end up in that situation first, then move to the next group. By the time you get to the kids—who have almost zero chance of ending up in the ICU from this—you're basically just trying to stop the virus from moving through the community so everyone else stays safe.

Look, I have nothing against vaccinating kids to help protect adults and finally put this pandemic behind us. But I draw the line at my children being used as shields for all those "jerks" who refuse to step up and take care of themselves. Once they finally get their shots, then we can talk about the kids.

And this isn't just some "opinion" of mine; it's the logical playbook that every successfully vaccinated country follows.

So, let me get this straight—by refusing to vaccinate your own child, you're basically hoping those unvaccinated adults catch the virus and, if luck would have it, maybe even die?

briskjackal5 said:slystag4: I guess if you ask me, it’s just one of those things where everything feels a bit more intense than it actually is! Maybe? But anyway, Quincy was saying something earlier that really got me thinking about how much stuff changes when you look at it from a different angle. It’s wild! I mean, seriously, it’s kind of crazy how we perceive things, right? I don't know, I might be overthinking it, but it feels like such a huge deal!

I guess I'm just going to jump right in here! So, I was thinking about all this lately, and honestly, maybe I'm overthinking it, but wow... there is just so much to unpack! It’s kind of wild when you really sit down and look at the details, isn't it? I mean, I don't know, I might be totally off base here, but it feels like everything is shifting so fast! Anyway, I just wanted to share that little thought with everyone. Hope you're all having a wonderful day! slystag4 says: So, he's telling me that the vaccine's effectiveness is, like, super questionable. I mean, I guess he really thinks that, right? It's just his take on it, I suppose!

So, what's that efficiency rating actually looking like? What is he saying about it?

slystag4: I mean, I was just thinking about what Quincy said earlier, and honestly? It’s such a good point. I guess maybe I didn't see it that way at first, but looking back, it totally makes sense! I'm just so excited to dive deeper into this. It feels like we're finally getting somewhere, you know? Maybe it's just me, but I'm feeling really pumped about where this conversation is heading!

Yeah. 😁

I mean, if you ask me, that little flaw? It’s probably going to be hanging around for a long, long time. I guess we'll just have to see, but my gut tells me it's here to stay.

I mean, you really need like, 25 seconds just to wrap your head around it, right? And honestly, that's usually way too big of a mouthful to swallow all at once. I guess!

Yeah!

slystag4: I mean, I guess if you look at what Quincy was saying, it’s kind of interesting, right? Maybe? It feels like we're all just circling the same idea, but I don't know! I honestly think there's more to it than that, though. Like, maybe we should consider how things actually play out in the real world, not just on paper. It’s just a thought! I might be totally off base here, but I really feel like we need to dig a little deeper into this whole situation. It’s such a wild topic, isn't it?!

I mean, I guess they really should be protected by a much higher percentage, don't you think? Maybe it just feels like we need more coverage than what's being offered right now.

What exactly does a "higher" percentage even mean in this context? I guess I might be overthinking it, but I'm a little confused!
Greater than what percentage, I guess? Maybe you could be a bit more specific there!

So, what’s the deal with that whole "should" phrasing? Like, when someone says they "should" do something, I guess it's kind of a fuzzy area, right? It’s not quite a "must," but it's definitely more than just a "maybe." It’s like that weird middle ground where there's an expectation or a suggestion hanging in the air, but nobody is actually forcing your hand! It can mean anything from a polite recommendation to a heavy sense of duty, depending on how you look at it, I suppose. It's such a tricky little phrase!
Where exactly does it say that, though? And honestly, how do you even decide what's actually "supposed" to happen in the first place? I mean, how do we even figure out the right way to go about it? It’s all a bit fuzzy, I guess! 🤔

So, I was wondering, what’s the actual percentage of people who haven't been vaccinated yet? And like, how are the Buggs doing compared to the Englishman? I guess it would be interesting to see those numbers! 🤔

briskjackal5

What's your point there?

The goal is herd immunity. What exact percentage of the population needs to be vaccinated to reach that threshold?

And at what level of mortality becomes acceptable in places where vaccination rates are high?

jadetinker85 said:What's your point there?

The goal is herd immunity. What exact percentage of the population needs to be vaccinated to reach that threshold?

And at what level of mortality becomes acceptable in places where vaccination rates are high?

Trying to reach herd immunity with a vaccine this ineffective is like trying to fill a bucket with a massive hole in the bottom.
Can anyone run the actual math here to show what percentage of coverage is required to achieve true herd immunity?
Just eyeballing it, it feels like we’d need about 230%, give or take 30%.
Looks like we’re breaking the laws of physics at this rate.☕

David Palmer5 said:Unfortunately, it isn't just the seniors getting hit
Take what the director of the local intensive care unit mentioned:
"- We’re seeing young patients too. For instance, the youngest person in our respiratory unit is only 22. Even the youngest person currently on a ventilator is 47. These are all critical cases, and the situation isn't looking like it did at the start of the pandemic," he noted.

COVID targets the old and the high-risk. That's just a fact. Let’s not play pretend here, shall we? Sure, there are outliers—a tiny fraction of exceptions because everyone's body reacts differently—but that's it. Do you suddenly have some inside scoop on this 22-year-old or the 47-year-old on life support? Maybe they weren't in peak physical condition? Maybe there was an underlying issue? Who knows... While everyone else is busy acting like geniuses and debating semantics, absolutely nothing is changing. Total joke. And then you have people like you, pointing out the obvious with lines like, "Well, even vaccinated people can get it, and vaccinated people can die..." Good morning to you, too! It's the same logic for every other disease we vaccinate against, except the odds of getting sick are significantly lower. There’s no such thing as a 100% guarantee, and there never has been. Kisses, and cheers!

nimbleranger17 said:Look, I’ll say it again just to be absolutely clear: there isn't a single shred of evidence anywhere—not in the official bulletins or the fine print—that mentions extending remote learning, unless you count those two ladies making noise about it.

It's reading between the lines.

jadetinker85 said:What's your point there?

The goal is herd immunity. What exact percentage of the population needs to be vaccinated to reach that threshold?

And at what level of mortality becomes acceptable in places where vaccination rates are high?

It feels like you didn't really answer any of the questions, though. 🤔

Like, what does "acceptable" actually mean in the context of your last question? 🤔

What kind of implications or context are we talking about? What’s the actual difference between an "acceptable" number and an "unacceptable" one?

Maybe try walking me through an example.
Let's say in a city of 10,000 people, we estimate a hundred might die if we don't vaccinate, or maybe just ten if we do.
And then we decide that's either "unacceptable" (or "acceptable").
So... what do we actually do with a conclusion like that? 😁

-Steve

Susan Jackson said:Trying to reach herd immunity with a vaccine this ineffective is like trying to fill a bucket with a massive hole in the bottom.
Can anyone run the actual math here to show what percentage of coverage is required to achieve true herd immunity?
Just eyeballing it, it feels like we’d need about 230%, give or take 30%.
Looks like we’re breaking the laws of physics at this rate.☕

Seems like you've got a point. At 230% vaccination rates—plus if we start vaccinating our golden retrievers against COVID and every other outbreak—we might finally get there.🙂

briskjackal5 said:It feels like you didn't really answer any of the questions, though. 🤔

Like, what does "acceptable" actually mean in the context of your last question? 🤔

What kind of implications or context are we talking about? What’s the actual difference between an "acceptable" number and an "unacceptable" one?

Maybe try walking me through an example.
Let's say in a city of 10,000 people, we estimate a hundred might die if we don't vaccinate, or maybe just ten if we do.
And then we decide that's either "unacceptable" (or "acceptable").
So... what do we actually do with a conclusion like that? 😁

-Steve

Hmm, look at Israel. By September, they had thousands of infections and hundreds of deaths despite high vaccination rates. Things only started stabilizing recently with the third dose, though it seems they have other measures in place too.

How many vaccinated deaths are "acceptable" to me? Not a single one. It's like traveling to a region where malaria is rampant. You get the shot... but in the end, your fate still rests on whether a mosquito bites you or not. So why bother with the vaccine at all?