01-30-2022, 09:36 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-30-2022, 09:47 PM by HereOnThePrimalEdge.)
Q: Why are so many vaccinated people getting COVID?
A: Variants
Q: Why are there so many variants?
A: So many unvaccinated people.
The new strain Omicron 2 had been detected in Hawaii:
Officials said certain traits for BA.2 may make it harder to detect, and scientists are worried it could be more contagious than the omicron variant.
The omicron variant accounts for about 99% of all COVID-19 cases across the islands.
A better understanding of the transmissibility of BA.2 will be available in the DOH’s next coronavirus variant report.
https://www.khon2.com/coronavirus/ba-2-n...in-hawaii/
A few notes on the WSJ Opinion piece posted above:
* The doctor who offered his opinion on COVID is an oncologist, not a virologist. Does he know more about COVID than I do? Yes. Does he know as much about COVID as a virologist? Definitely not.
* His piece relies almost entirely on 20/20 hindsight. It's easy to point fingers after the fact, whip up emotions and place blame, then target a group he identifies as the bad guys for retribution. The doctor is a regular contributor on Fox News where he is happy to support their party line, and use outrage as a primary source for engaging viewers, or in this case readers.
Is this attacking the messenger? Or is it first discovering if the messenger is qualified to deliver the message, then whether the message is objective or subjective, fact or fiction?
A: Variants
Q: Why are there so many variants?
A: So many unvaccinated people.
The new strain Omicron 2 had been detected in Hawaii:
Officials said certain traits for BA.2 may make it harder to detect, and scientists are worried it could be more contagious than the omicron variant.
The omicron variant accounts for about 99% of all COVID-19 cases across the islands.
A better understanding of the transmissibility of BA.2 will be available in the DOH’s next coronavirus variant report.
https://www.khon2.com/coronavirus/ba-2-n...in-hawaii/
A few notes on the WSJ Opinion piece posted above:
* The doctor who offered his opinion on COVID is an oncologist, not a virologist. Does he know more about COVID than I do? Yes. Does he know as much about COVID as a virologist? Definitely not.
* His piece relies almost entirely on 20/20 hindsight. It's easy to point fingers after the fact, whip up emotions and place blame, then target a group he identifies as the bad guys for retribution. The doctor is a regular contributor on Fox News where he is happy to support their party line, and use outrage as a primary source for engaging viewers, or in this case readers.
Is this attacking the messenger? Or is it first discovering if the messenger is qualified to deliver the message, then whether the message is objective or subjective, fact or fiction?