The Associated Press did an analysis of government data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the current status of COVID-19, in relation to people who are fully vaccinated and those who refused to get shots. And while the results aren’t surprising, they’re notable.
And that begins with the report showing that COVID deaths in the United States are about 300 a day as of March (it’s down to about 100 per day now, though should go up again next winter). But critically important, it added that almost all of these COVID-19 deaths today in the U.S. are for people who weren’t vaccinated. But, y’know, that whole “personal choice” thing and all. So, life goes on. As does COVID Also, while the data from May shows there have been 853,000 hospitalizations for COVID-19, less than 1,200 of those come from “breakthrough” infections in fully vaccinated people accounted. Which, for those of you without an abacus is 0.1%. In addition, there were more than 18,000 deaths COVID-19 in May, but by comparison, only 150 of those were for people who were fully vaccinated. And that’s 0.8%, which by most mathematical standards is really small. Which means that a lot of people who had the option to make a “personal choice,” did a very tragically bad job choosing. In fairness, the CDC says that some states are more aggressive than others when tracking breakthrough infections, and not every state even does so – five or so don’t. So the data likely understates breakthrough infections. But the trend is clear and emphatic. For instance, Andy Slavitt, who was the Biden Administration adviser on Covid-19, estimated a few weeks ago that 98% to 99% of Americans who are currently dying from COVID-19 are unvaccinated. But then, that’s their personal choice, of course. Further, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky reiterated that very same point this week when discussing the effectiveness of the vaccine, saying that "nearly every death, especially among adults, due to COVID-19, is, at this point, entirely preventable.” And as such, she said that deaths from COVID today are “particularly tragic.” And tragically, that was their personal choice. Unfortunately, it was not the personal choice of the vast majority of Americans who got vaccinated to continue living with an active COVID-19 virus that continues to mutate among so many unvaccinated.
0 Comments
There are a few softball issues that are perfect for politicians. To mix sports metaphors, simple layups that they can score easy, open points on. “Do you like puppies?” would be one of them, for example.
So, it always amazes me when Republicans lately swing and miss on one. Trump was big on that – like when he’s said he thinks people are suckers for joining the military. “God bless our troops” is a no-brainer. Joe Biden has ended all his speeches with that for years. But not Trump, to him, they’re suckers. True, it was said in private – though repeatedly – but what politicians (let alone president, the Commander-in-Chief for goodness sake!) even thinks that?? And one of those softball positions has to be – “I believe we should protect the health of our children.” (Side note: No, this isn’t about guns and schools. It could be. But it isn’t. Because it’s even a simpler matter than that. Which, given that guns are the number cause of death for children, means it’s pretty simple.) So, again, one of the most softball position a politician can take is – “I believe we should protect the health of our children.” That seems core basic standard, and any other synonyms you can think of, for a politician while eating a hot dog and saving apple pie for dessert. A foundational fundamental position to take without even thinking. It’s the kind of subject every politician probably dreams about having to deal with. The kind of question every politician prays to get when kneeling at their bedside before going to sleep. Because they can answer it in their sleep. “Sir, do you believe we should protect the health of our children?” Click, whirr, ka-ching – “I have always believed that children are our future. And we must protect them and cherish them, because children are the best we have to offer. God bless our children. When I look at children, I know America is in great hands. And we have to do everything to keep them safe and healthy.” That’s just a politician getting started, without even trying. Then they’ll go into their long, elementary, grassroots speech about families and values and their family and their children, and looking into their eyes, and doing anything for them – “and you parents out there, you know what I’m talking about” – and the politicians are just winging it at this point, not needing anything planned, because this is just rudimentary, normal, core, basic, standard, foundations, fundamental, elementary, grassroots stuff…not even trying hard or needing to catch their breath. Posing with their family, pictures of them and their children on their campaign material, for their holiday cards, on their personal websites. “Our kids. It’s all about our kids, isn’t it?” Cue the cheers. This is a softball subject for a politician. (I first wrote “issue,” but it doesn’t even reach the level of “issue,” any more than “air” is an issue when asked “So, what are you breathing?” Which is why it is utterly bewildering to me how many Republican politicians are whiffing on the subject. Missing the layup with no one else on their side of the court. Republican legislators are passing laws to deny healthcare to transgender children. Let me rephrase that in case it wasn’t clear -- Republican legislators are actually passing laws to deny healthcare to transgender children. This is totally separate to what they as politicians think about LGBTQ or what they think about how their constituents more feel about it, or more specifically about the subject of transgender. They might hate it or be confused by or think it’s against God or think it’s sad or unfortunate or be scared by it or not know what to make of it or think it’s okay but bad politics or whatever. They might hate the parents who allow their children to have a transgender operation or hate the doctors who perform the operation or be confused by it all or think it’s okay but bad politics or whatever. But at issue is something very basic – if a child needs healthcare, whoever they are, we as humans give the child healthcare. For goodness sake, doctors perform operations to help save the lives of murderer. And as much as people might be bothered by that, even Red states have not passed laws to outlaw that. Yet they’re passing laws not to give healthcare to children who are transgender. And to be clear, it’s more basic than that: they’re passing laws not to give healthcare to children. “They” being people who, if you asked them, “Sir, do you believe we should protect the health of our children?”, would answer – after the click, whirr, ka-ching: “I have always believed that children are our future. And we must protect them and cherish them, because children are the best we have to offer. God bless our children. When I look at children, I know America is in great hands. And we have to do everything to keep them safe and healthy.” If Republican politicians want to hate the parents who allow such operations to proceed on their children, that’s a position to take – no matter how right the politician may feel or wrong others might say -- to try and defend to the public. But that’s the parent. For the politicians to then take their reaction toward the adult out on the child -- who is a child, unless that isn’t clear to them -- seems barbaric. And especially barbaric if asked “Sir, do you believe we should protect the health of our children? and -- click, whirr, ka-ching – answered, “I have always believed that children are our future. And we must protect them and cherish them.” There’s no asterisk for that. No “…however.” No “…except…” To the core, basic, standard softball question -- “Sir, do you believe we should protect the health of our children?”, the answer is “Yes. Always. Of course. For every child.” But it’s not for far too many Republican politicians. And “one” is too many. The guest on this week’s Al Franken podcast are Andy Slavitt and Laurie Garrett. The two are among the top experts on the pandemic, and they talk with Al about the question “The End of the COVID Emergency?” and where things actually stand where we are right now.
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver returned last night. If you missed it, their Main Story was about LSD and other psychedelics, but more specifically how they're used in therapy. They look at the convoluted past (including how it was demonized), current efforts and what lies ahead. It's a very interesting report, covering both the positives and risks, and as you can imagine, it was also a fertile ground for a lot of humor. The other day, I was at the grocery story standing in line to check out. A fellow behind me started getting chatty. As I turned to reply, I wasn't overly thrilled about it, but made the best of the situation. In fairness, he was trying to be nice and even complimentary, but the direction things were going just wasn't for me, as you'll see.
I mean, yes, he did start out nice, saying how good it was that I was wearing a mask indoors, adding that it was necessary inside though not outside because, after all, you can't get COVID outdoors. Much as I wasn't anxious to join the conversation, I thought this wasn't something to let slide, so -- as politely as I could -- I said, well, no, that wasn't true. He thought about this a moment, and then politely nodded, "Yes, you're probably right, if you're close enough." I nodded in return, and then turned back. I figured that was the end of the conversation -- but no. He passed along another compliment. "I see you're wearing one of those N95 masks. They're the best. Good for you." I agreed with him that, yes, they are the best...though added that, no, this wasn't an N95. It was a KN95. (Those look completely different and have totally different straps.) "Oh, yes, right." he replied. It struck me that the conversation wasn't going to end any time soon, and I just didn't want to continue this one, and so began looking around to see if another line was shorter, figuring if I moved there it was seem more polite, having a good reason. And happily, yes, there was a shorter line, so off I went. Mind you, I'd have gone even if the line was twice as long. By the way, just to let you know that I wasn't being overly rude and that my desire to leave the line was without cause. When I said above that the direction of the conversation wasn't going well, it wasn't because of the incorrect compliments he was giving me about COVID mask safety -- it came early the moment I turned around. It's because, for all these lovely, if incorrect compliments...he wasn't wearing a mask. I just knew the conversation wasn't for me. Sometimes you just can't social distance far enough... This is sort of remarkable. It's kind of a page out of John Oliver who did something like this a year or so ago as a joke to make a point. But the Toledo City Council did it on a massive scale.
Last night, the Toledo City Council approved $800,000 to purchase the medical debt of those in the city who qualify, There are 270,000 people in Toledo. That means it cost only $3 per resident for the city council to create around $160-240 million in debt relief. Worth noting, too, is that the money is being made available by using some of the federal recovery dollars the city has received -- thanks to the Biden Administration and Democrats. Here's an article on the story and the television report from station WTVG in Toledo. |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|