I think that will happen even without the lockdowns. The states that tend to lock down seem to also have the highest housing prices. And with millions now free to work from wherever they like, they will seek out cheaper shores.
When I moved, someone at my old office said, "How can you stand to live in a state represented by Senator X?" I told him, "When Senator X picks up my dry cleaning or valets my car, I'll care. Until then, Senator X has zero bearing on my everyday life."
I think people overestimate the weight that politics plays in selecting a place to live.
I get that a ton of poeple don't like politics in the sense of grandstanding politicians, debates on social issues that don't go anywhere, flame wars on FB, etc.
But the actual governments, fed state down to local have a huge impact on virtually everything we do in our daily lives. And in the US it's almost all politics. We aren't are less of a technocracy (idk if that's the correct term?) and not an authoritarian state.
Roads, pipes to bring water, sewer treatment, schools, healthcare (both subsidized and also the regulations on for profit insurance holders), cars, the food we eat, gas for our cars, etc etc etc. And oftentimes it's the smallest level politics that have the largest impact; city council & school board.
Maybe the internet might still be one of the largest still under regulated / touched by govt $ policy we have left.
Yeah, the privilege is absolutely nuts. I've had to make very concrete plans to move if elections in my state ever starts to turn really red. I don't give two shits about most politics, but I have zero choice but huddle up against the Democrats because they're the only ones not actively trying to harm me and at least pay lip service to my issue. In the absence of R's treatment of minorities, stupid manufactured culture war wedge issues, and sudden onset bootlicking, I would probably be one. I don't get that choice though. Like the only thing that has kept me safe the past decade is my state supreme court and the ACLU.
Or, you know, you could be a woman needing to terminate a pregnancy and the laws in your state prevent you from doing that. Or you can't get legally married to your partner, and so on.
What may seem to be manufactured to you can affect people unlike you in tangible ways.
Yeah now that vaccines are being shown to have rapidly waning immunity and minimal resistance to new strains I wonder what the permanent lockdown states end game is.
I think Black Plague was like 60% fatality rate and killed so many people that it's theorized it paved the way for the enlightenment by disrupting entrenched economic stratification.
Covid is essentially the flu compared to a real historical pandemic.
Like isn't a turing complete language proven to be the highest level one can go to be able to do anything required with code?
Everything past that reduces the amount of code but also reduces the number of things the code can do and at some point in the code reduction, it's just a declarative language?
Its all shades of gray between imperative/functionsl and declarative.
The problem is that it is federal overreach. I'm fine with doing it on a state by state basis, but this has no business being in the purview of the federal govt.
This poor guy got bells palsy from the vaccine. And he's healthy 56 years old which is a very low-risk group to begin with. The statistics for a healthy 56 year old dying of C19 are extremely minimal.
A healthy politician in Australia appareny also came down with Bell's palsy recently after getting the vaccine. Victor Dominello.
"If they talk to me long enough, they notice, even six months later, I still have some lingering symptoms of Bell’s Palsy, which I got following my vaccination. I still have to put drops in my right eye every now and then, still have to drink oddly out of only one side of my mouth. I can’t honestly say there isn’t some minor risk, even though I do add and emphasize, “I would have still gotten vaccinated again. Having my risk of death cut down by 10 times is like, huge man. Worth a few eye drops now and then.”
The susceptibility of people to news media fear mongering influencing them to do things directly against their best interest, like injecting experimental medication or the poor voting for less taxes on the rich... will never cease to amaze me. The power of propaganda.
While there is a link between COVID vaccine and Bell's palsy, in general it seems one would have greater risk of getting Bell's palsy from COVID itself rather than from the vaccine.
More generally, Bell's palsy is associated with viral infections of the upper respiratory tract (not limited to covid, and among other things). So it's not surprising that it's a (rare) complication of covid.
> 19 Bells Palsy per 100 000 vaccine(from paper provided) = 0.00019
> Bells Palsy from COVID in the general poulation
7 million (infected 50 year olds) * .08% (of BP from the paper) = 5600 / 350 million(us population) = 0.000016
Looks like your chances are significantly better NOT getting the vaccine. And it just gets dramatically worse the younger age groups you look at.
This is assuming the vaccine affects every age group similarly which there is conveniently no data on that I could find. But according to the news media it does affect everyone the same.
So your math answers the question if I take a random American, what's the likelihood they're a person aged 50-64 and they're known to have had Covid by November 10, 2021 and then BP (0.0016%) and you're comparing that to if I get the vaccine, what's the likelihood I get BP within 8 weeks (0.019%). I'm not sure how much sense it makes to compare those two figures. That's ignoring errors in the underlying numbers (US population is wrong).
Yeah that's exactly the calculation were looking for.
Do you want me to run the numbers for a person under 18?
Trust me it will be drastically less chance of BP from covid than the vaccine.
We would never consider the idea... that an IV drug users chance of getting AIDS
.. is the same chance as the rest of the population.
Yet for some reason people are okay with the idea that a healthy 18 year old has the same chance of negative outcomes from covid as an UNhealthy 75 year old. And that the response should be commensurate.
Very strange to me how we don't differentiate population and lifestyle adjustments to covid statistics.
if I take a random American, what's the likelihood they're a person aged 50-64 and they're known to have had Covid by November 10, 2021 and then BP
Why would that be the calculation you're looking for? It's already off by an order of magnitude because the likelihood of any given American being in the age bracket is around 1:7. And it's another order of magnitude off because while not everyone has had a first infection or vaccination yet, everyone will, in the (not so) long run.
You're trying to prove you're less likely to get BP from Covid than from a vaccine while using a number -- the 0.08% -- that says the opposite, and yet you end up with a number you like. Because your calculation is just nonsense.
It's all kind of a moot point, since it's seemingly a relatively rare complication in both the disease and the vaccine; you're more likely to die from Covid than get BP if you're older than 45, as far as we know.
The thing is, you're not calculating the chance of infection correctly. You're taking the number of cases in an age group, and then dividing by the total number of residents. That doesn't work. Either start with the total number of cases, or divide by the number of residents in the age group. Here's the latter:
7.2 million cases aged 50-64 [1]
58 million people in the US aged 50-64 [2]
So based on those numbers, 12.5% people in that bracket were infected by early November. From that you can attempt to extrapolate an infection risk per annum of around 8%.
Of course, now we're extrapolating from a time with varying degrees of voluntary and involuntary NPIs such as mask wearing and social distancing to a time where those won't be practiced widely, some of the time range we're extrapolating from also had the virus localized to regional or social communities, while now the distribution is more and more homogeneous. On the other hand, it's possible that virus spread will measurably decrease now that more and more people have some resistance through vaccination or past infections. So it's not a very reliable extrapolation at all.
All age groups are equally INFECTIOUS once they have the disease, but are not equally able to BE INFECTED , otherwise people under 55 wouldn't have to wear masks. We wear the mask to protect others right? No matter what our age is.
So why would you reduce the population size to just an age slice?
The same assumption is made when calculating herd immunity. They use the entire populations infectiousness because chance to transmit doesn't change with age but chance to be infected does..
But you DO limit by age group on the infection side because that individuals chance of contracting it from the general population, is based on age/immune system .
Like I said, you can do this calculation (percentage infected) for an age bracket (#infected in age bracket / population size in age bracket) or you can do it for the whole population (#infected in whole population / whole population size).
But it doesn't make sense to do #infected in age bracket / whole population size. You might as well calculate #infected in age bracket / number of cattle in Texas.
Of course there are many reasons why one would want to look at the number of infected in certain age (or social or whatever) groups. Beyond that, I'd prefer not to get further into the weeds with you.
If I walk into a room of people with the black plague, I'm concerned about every single person in that room giving me the disease not just the people of my age bracket.
That's the chance of infection.
This same idea is used in mask policy and is used with herd immunity calculations and all over epidemiology to be honest.
I'm really sorry that you have to do mental gymnastics to shoehorn this subject into your narrative.
I wasn't the one who brought up age brackets, you were ("infected 50 year olds"). But here's the calculation for the entire US population.
Total number infected until early November 2021: ~37 million [1]
Total population of the US: ~329 million
Infection percentage so far in pandemic: 11.2%
"Chance of infection" (per annum): ~7%
See above why this is an absurd extrapolation that nobody with any brains would take seriously. In the long run, pretty much everybody will get Sars-Cov-2. It's an endemic disease.
Both are valuable to people.
(regardless of age, sex, race, status, etc)