Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Twitter)   After getting owned by Dr. Fauci, Rand Paul is trying so hard to redeem himself   (twitter.com) divider line
    More: Fail, shot  
•       •       •

3651 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Sep 2020 at 1:07 PM (3 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



101 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-09-24 11:24:10 AM  
Original Tweet:

 
2020-09-24 11:26:44 AM  
22% is less than 66%.  You are technically correct.
 
2020-09-24 11:29:27 AM  
He posted this while sticking his lower lip out, pouting with rage that his mommy told him to go to his room and clean it before dinner.
 
2020-09-24 11:30:26 AM  
Every interpretation is a misinterpretation.
 
2020-09-24 11:36:21 AM  
So he come back to being told that 22% isn't high enough for herd immunity is to point out that BEST CASE it can be reached at 66%?

That's.........well that's a thing he just did huh?
 
2020-09-24 11:36:44 AM  
fark Rand Paul
 
2020-09-24 11:36:44 AM  
Heterogeneity and herd immunity
In response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), some politicians have been keen to exploit the idea of achieving herd immunity. Countering this possibility are estimates derived from work on historical vaccination studies, which suggest that herd immunity may only be achieved at an unacceptable cost of lives. Because human populations are far from homogeneous, Britton et al. show that by introducing age and activity heterogeneities into population models for SARS-CoV-2, herd immunity can be achieved at a population-wide infection rate of ∼40%, considerably lower than previous estimates. This shift is because transmission and immunity are concentrated among the most active members of a population, who are often younger and less vulnerable. If nonpharmaceutical interventions are very strict, no herd immunity is achieved, and infections will then resurge if they are eased too quickly.
Science, this issue p. 846

Abstract
Despite various levels of preventive measures, in 2020, many countries have suffered severely from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus. Using a model, we show that population heterogeneity can affect disease-induced immunity considerably because the proportion of infected individuals in groups with the highest contact rates is greater than that in groups with low contact rates. We estimate that if R0 = 2.5 in an age-structured community with mixing rates fitted to social activity, then the disease-induced herd immunity level can be ~43%, which is substantially less than the classical herd immunity level of 60% obtained through homogeneous immunization of the population. Our estimates should be interpreted as an illustration of how population heterogeneity affects herd immunity rather than as an exact value or even a best estimate.



"We modeled this population that would be near impossible to create in the real world, and might only be achievable by force, and found that the loss of life to get herd immunity might be acceptable."
 
2020-09-24 11:37:09 AM  
Rand Paul's an idiot birthed in an idiot family created by idiots (libertarians).
 
2020-09-24 11:37:10 AM  
Sure, some populations may achieve herd immunity at much lower rates of infection.

The problem is, we don't know what factors can influence that result, or whether herd immunity is even possible long term, or if it is, whether those factors are present in our population.

There are 340 million of us. We could roll the dice and put millions of lives at risk based on the hope that all those unknowns will line up in our favor, or, OR-

You can definitely save lives by putting a farking mask on for a little while, and hopefully stop whining about it like a goddamn snotty toddler.
 
2020-09-24 11:39:01 AM  
Radium water seemed like a good idea to people once, too
 
2020-09-24 11:42:13 AM  
"I am a dickhead wearing a bird's nest." -Rand Paul
 
2020-09-24 11:50:07 AM  
The guy who had to start his own board of ophthalmology so he could be licensed is lecturing the brightest mind in epidemiology on herd immunity.

This is 2020
 
2020-09-24 11:53:15 AM  

NewportBarGuy: "I am a dickhead wearing a bird's nest." -Rand Paul


"I'm not only the Hair Club president but I'm also a client".
 
2020-09-24 12:08:14 PM  
rand has a hearing problem.
 
2020-09-24 12:14:58 PM  

some_beer_drinker: rand has a hearing problem.


Read that as hairing problem.
 
2020-09-24 1:09:04 PM  
His neighbor didn't beat him hard enough.
 
2020-09-24 1:09:42 PM  
You're a complete idiot, Rand.

Learn to know this your own self or be forced to know.
 
2020-09-24 1:10:07 PM  
Dig up, Rand!
 
2020-09-24 1:10:50 PM  

gilgigamesh: hopefully stop whining about it like a goddamn snotty toddler.


Difficulty: North American Republicans.

Hrm. DNAR.

Dinnar.  Dinner for Covid-19.
 
2020-09-24 1:11:29 PM  
Randall, don't go trying to school a man who's forgotten more about a subject than you will ever know.
 
2020-09-24 1:11:48 PM  
A stunning example of Dunning-Kruger in full effect.
 
2020-09-24 1:11:56 PM  
"the government (aka Dr. Fauci)"


.... o.O wut
 
2020-09-24 1:12:13 PM  

gilgigamesh: Sure, some populations may achieve herd immunity at much lower rates of infection.

The problem is, we don't know what factors can influence that result, or whether herd immunity is even possible long term, or if it is, whether those factors are present in our population.

There are 340 million of us. We could roll the dice and put millions of lives at risk based on the hope that all those unknowns will line up in our favor, or, OR-

You can definitely save lives by putting a farking mask on for a little while, and hopefully stop whining about it like a goddamn snotty toddler.


We're gonna go with the first one.
 
2020-09-24 1:12:38 PM  
If he wants to redeem himself, he can try jumping into a Volcano.
 
2020-09-24 1:12:46 PM  
So he's assholesplaining epidemiology to one of the experts in the field.

I paid a guy $100 a few days ago to fix my washing machine. I let a perfect opportunity to tell him how to do his farking job get away by just shutting my piehole and letting him do that job without looking up "washing machine repair" on Google and giving him some pointers.
 
2020-09-24 1:13:03 PM  
I just cannot believe that there are senators - in this case an MD, no less - that are actually bickering in favor of herd immunity, rather than actually do the necessary steps, to show the leadership necessary, to effectively manage a pandemic. In order to try to favorably frame an incompetent potus.

I guess it's just too hard - despite the fact that everyone else has managed to do it.
 
2020-09-24 1:13:13 PM  
"im not owned! im not owned!!", i continue to insist as i slowly shrink and transform into a corn cob

https://twitter.com/dril/status/13478​7​490526658561
 
2020-09-24 1:13:38 PM  
I really don't know who to trust, the man with multiple Ph.d's directly related to their exact field of study who dedicated their life to this specific field, and has done it for over 50 years.

Or, a Senator who skimmed over a Scientific America news article that one time after losing an argument.

I guess both sides are basically the same, so how will I ever know who to trust.
 
2020-09-24 1:14:31 PM  
I thought he was in favor of ownership culture?
 
2020-09-24 1:15:26 PM  
It would be terribly funny if Fauci was a contributing author to the article.
 
2020-09-24 1:16:51 PM  
I read the comments.

/Don't read the comments.
 
2020-09-24 1:16:52 PM  

snocone: some_beer_drinker: rand has a hearing problem.

Read that as hairing problem.


You know who else had a herring problem?

vignette.wikia.nocookie.netView Full Size
 
2020-09-24 1:17:11 PM  
But I am now convinced Rand farking Paul is on Fark. Not sure what his login is, there are so many possibilities there.
 
2020-09-24 1:17:23 PM  
Go poke an eye, pubehead, it's not your field.
 
2020-09-24 1:17:26 PM  
Remember that old boomer saying, "Don't trust anyone under 30?"
 
2020-09-24 1:17:29 PM  
In response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), some politicians have been keen to exploit the idea of achieving herd immunity.

From a link shared by a politician keen to exploit the idea of achieving herd immunity.
 
2020-09-24 1:18:48 PM  
Fat chance, Paul, you farking mutant
 
2020-09-24 1:19:15 PM  
So there would only be 3 million deaths not 6 million if we let this run rampant!  You were wrong, libby loos! Woooooooo!
 
2020-09-24 1:19:40 PM  

PaulRB: Rand Paul's an idiot birthed in an idiot family created by idiots (libertarians).


His father told him he was the smartest French kisser in the family.
 
2020-09-24 1:20:25 PM  
When someone brings up Galileo you can just smell the stink of desperation.  You aren't Galileo, Rand.  You're not even in the same solar system.
 
2020-09-24 1:20:26 PM  

HerptheDerp: I really don't know who to trust, the man with multiple Ph.d's directly related to their exact field of study who dedicated their life to this specific field, and has done it for over 50 years.

Or, a Senator who skimmed over a Scientific America news article that one time after losing an argument.

I guess both sides are basically the same, so how will I ever know who to trust.


Well obviously the Republicans.
 
2020-09-24 1:20:32 PM  

Myrdinn: gilgigamesh: hopefully stop whining about it like a goddamn snotty toddler.

Difficulty: North American Republicans.

Hrm. DNAR.

Dinnar.  Dinner for Covid-19.


Drugtender, I'll have whatever Myrdinn had.
 
2020-09-24 1:20:59 PM  
Therefour.

/pet peeve
 
2020-09-24 1:21:56 PM  

dericwater: It would be terribly funny if Fauci was a contributing author to the article.


pics.me.meView Full Size
 
2020-09-24 1:22:20 PM  
pbs.twimg.comView Full Size
 
2020-09-24 1:22:26 PM  
Rand Paul is a trained scientician in the arts of eyeball maintenance who hasn't practiced in 10+ years.  So of course he's qualified to correct a 40-year experienced, internationally-lauded epidemiologist on the topic of respiratory pandemics.  Asimov comes through again: "'...my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
 
2020-09-24 1:23:18 PM  
Affiliations.

Tom Britton1,
Frank Ball2,
Pieter Trapman1

1Department of Mathematics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
2School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.

Note:
1) No epidemiologists, just mathematicians.
2) From two countries that have farked this up worse than we have.

Also: Pure mathematical modeling based on assumptions. No data used. Asserts that only "severe" preventative measures result in a second wave (which may be true for the wrong reason....the first wave never ending. See, well, the US) Completely misunderstands the point of slowing the infection rate, which is to prevent overwhelming of hospitals, which has caused a vastly increased fatality rate in the three places we've seen it happen (Wuhan, Lombardy, NYC.)

Personal Verdict: How nice. Please fit to actual data and I might pay attention. I do give credit that they are not asserting, just suggesting more research, forex "Our application to COVID-19 indicates a reduction of herd immunity from 60% under homogeneous immunization down to 43% (assuming R0 = 2.5) in a structured population, but this should be interpreted as an illustration rather than as an exact value or even a best estimate. Future efforts need to be made to quantify more precisely the size of this effect."

IOW, they're saying "You know, non-homogenous populations might see herd immunity effects at lower percentages, and we should look at that." This is....not automatically an incorrect statement. Question: Is the infection rate non-homogenous? Answer: hell yeah it is, at least in the US. Roughly 45% of infections in the last two months have been in the 20-29 and 50-59 cohorts.

The first argument against is herd immunity percentages come from actual examples of infection rates vs. immunizations. You see a slow decline as you vaccinate until you hit about 65%, you then see the rate plummet.  I'm loathe to lend much credence to models that are going against real-world data.

But the statement that non-homogenous immunization may be a better plan is not something to discard. The current highest infection cohorts in the US are 20-29 and 50-59. Concentrating vaccinations on them might hit that "knee down" point quicker than just immunizing people as they show up for the shot. That's a point worth investigating.

But this doesn't change anything about the need to distance, wear masks, etc. What it might suggest is that targeted immunizations could more rapidly slow this disease than non-targeted.
 
2020-09-24 1:23:29 PM  

Devolving_Spud: 22% is less than 66%.  You are technically correct.


No, he isn't. The article says herd immunity, under some contrived conditions, could be had at 40%. NY is nowhere near that. Even if the conditions in NY met the conditions in the paper to maybe achieve herd immunity, NY isn't close to that level. Rand Paul just proved himself wrong. Again.
 
2020-09-24 1:23:41 PM  
He's diagnosed Dr. Fauci as being nearsighted, I guess.
 
2020-09-24 1:23:58 PM  

Smelly Pirate Hooker: But I am now convinced Rand farking Paul is on Fark. Not sure what his login is, there are so many possibilities there.


The kind of log-in that could up and vanish like a fart in the wind?
 
Displayed 50 of 101 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.