If this man survives, and I certainly hope he does, his new-found appreciation for vaccination might help reduce hesitancy in the very audience whom he may have negatively influenced against vaccines. It’s sad that it takes personal involvement for some people to “get it,” but apparently that is human nature for a certain segment of the population.
This man showed the common timeline of those who do not do well with COVID. Initial period of illness, deceptive period of improvement, then rapid deterioration. I’m sure he has access to the best medical care money can buy, so his odds of recovery improve, but he will likely have a long road to full recovery if he survives. For those “unlucky” people, this is NO FLU.
There’s hope for others. This is a quote from the article you linked:
"On July 22, his family said in a statement: “Phil would like for his listeners to know that while he has never been an ‘anti-vaxer’ he regrets not being more vehemently ‘Pro-Vaccine’, and looks forward to being able to more vigorously advocate that position as soon as he is back on the air, which we all hope will be soon.”
Speaking to CNN on Monday, Mark Valentine said he had heard of people getting vaccinated after learning about his brother’s situation.
“We have had dozens and dozens of people who have responded to the different media that we’re… presently involved with, that have said, we went and got vaccinated because of this,” he said."
We finally heard back from our unvaccinated friends with Covid. The wife has a mild case, but her H has pneumonia. He is home, but on lots of medication and she is supposed to watch him closely in case he needs to return to the hospital because of breathing difficulties. He kept telling my H that he didn’t need to have the vaccine because the doctors have better treatments now if you get Covid. I don’t follow this logic at all when a simple vaccine could have prevented this for him. Just for some reference this friend has a master’s degree in electrical engineering so he is not uneducated.
Actually I was on several flight earlier this month and witnessed two mask related incidents on UA. Both involved people who were asked to properly wear their mask. One was initiated by a fellow passenger across the isle of us in 1st class, and the other was initiated by an attendant as passengers walked down the isle. The stats are clear that mask related incidents make up a large percentage of in-flight incidents. The stats may not be popular with some but they are what they are.
A free vaccine vs. hundreds if not thousands (or more) in treatment and medication even if you have insurance? Even without the fear of actual death it doesn’t make any sense.
Ah well, you should probably switch your airline. UA is famous for recording all sorts of bad incidents and did so well before Covid! We refuse to fly with them - but that’s another topic.
I fly Delta and SWA and also flew AA once. I’ve flown to the southern US three times, the western US twice, and around the midwest several times. My husband has flown east, south, west and around the midwest as well more than I have using the same three airlines. Neither has experienced a bad incident other than severe weather making the flight miserable on a couple of occasions. FA’s would come through the aisle and occasionally ask someone to put their mask up over their nose and the passenger would do so. (NB: once that person was me! Was drinking water and forgot to put the mask up afterwards). I experienced a flight from hell once - with two aborted landing attempts in Chicago amidst a major snowstorm in late winter and an eventual diversion to Milwaukee due to groundings at both O’Hare and Midway. Lots of delays and complaining! The storm messed up air traffic for two days and people in the airport weren’t very happy either. But no mask incidents. Just a better overall passenger experience on those airlines - and perhaps just nicer people.
I’m happy for your positive flying experiences. I really am. But when I make a point I try to support it with data. Perhaps you should try that as well. It’s enlightening. In any case, it does not seem that I will change your mind, and without supporting data I know you wont change mine.
To be fair, though, there have been only 2,666 mask-related incidents reported in 2021 so far, which is really a drop in the bucket. EACH DAY, there are 42,000 commercial flights moving 2,587,000 passengers in the US.
No argument that incidents are up and that a good number of them (2/3) are mask-related. You have attributed this to the “unvaccinated”:
Where is the data to support your statement? Recall - from reading my posts - that when these incidents began pretty much everyone was unvaccinated: those who were intending to vax, and those who weren’t. Vaccination has only been widely available for the past three months. What are the May - July incident numbers? How many are vaxed vs. unvaxed? Since data is important - we can both agree on that - it would be helpful if you can post it, since it would support your earlier point that it is those choosing not to vaccinate who are initiating these incidents. I’ve read that some Americans have forgotten their manners due possibly to the long lock-downs, and that alcohol has played a factor in at least some of the incidents. So there might be more to the story of why some are misbehaving.
I read, however, that the number of commercial flights is still only at 65% of what they were in 2019. So I agree with Rivet that the numbers are probably abnormally high compared to historically. What we may not know is what a “mask-related” incident is. That’s a new category. With only 16% of this higher number of incidents being investigated despite “zero tolerance” I wonder how unruly the unmasked passenger truly was.
Let me simplify my point. These incidences are related to masks. If vaccinations are required to fly then masks would not be required. It would seem reasonable for mask related incidents to go down. No masks - no incidences.
I don’t wish to debate this airlines and masking issue, so this’ll be it: Tavern Girl has just posted the WaPo article above that details the CDC’s own recent internal study. The article’s summary: Masks will probably continue to be required in the future; Covid is here to stay for a bit longer.
It’s all about who is being exposed, exposure rates, etc.
First of all, when they spoke about half of the infections,
that was half of all the adult infections. Second of all, the people who were exposed were a group who have a very high rate of vaccination. Given that the group who were exposed were about 80%-85% vaccinated, the fact that they represented only 50% of the infected means that unvaccinated people were at least 4X more likely to be infected than the unvaccinated people.
The problem with STEM education in the this country is that when they tech subjects like statistics, they do not teach probability in any meaningful way. Statistics are taught in the same awful manner than math is taught - plug in numbers to formulas who have been memorized.
First of all, “infection rate among unvaccinated” did not hit 25%, because that means that 25% of all vaccinated people were being infected, which is not what I think you meant.
I assume that you meant that 25% of all infected people were vaccinated.
However, according to the LA Times from 07/28:
The numbers are not 1/4, but 20%. So, if 53% the people in LA county are vaccinated, and there are 4X as many infected among the 47% unvaccinated, that means that unvaccinated people are 4X as likely to be infected as vaccinated people. That’s a 75% protection rate from infection. Again, when you look at who is being exposed, the demographics of the infected, etc., that 7X the rate is pretty clear.
Then there is the fact that hospitalization rates and death rates for the vaccinated is much much lower than for the unvaccinated.
The data is all there, and, if you listen to the people who understand epidemiology and virology, they will explain it pretty well.
If, on the other hand, you get your “explanations” from politicized talking heads who are being paid to reduce the public trust in scientists and other professionals, you’ll likely come away with the false impression that the professionals don’t know what they are doing.
Then your concern seems to be about the method these physicians used to gather their data. My understanding is that examinations of possible vaccine side effects - especially in little researched areas such as menstrual cycles - are similar to those of long-Covid: it starts with self-reporting, and there is typically an expressed need for more research (including clinical trials if appropriate) in order to examine the matter in more detail. We are in the nascent stage of examining all these issues. Perhaps you can offer the researchers your insights and provide some corrections or clarifications to their methods.
