COVID COVID-19 Coronavirus Containment Efforts

[JT Smith]

Why is this a problem? According to the CDC, "Only unvaccinated people are at risk by unmasking." Are we following the CDC guidance or not?

Why would you? Early in the pandemic they told us wearing a mask wasn't effective, that it could actually be worse than not wearing one. They did that because they were concerned about the limited availability of masks for front line medical workers. But they didn't say it that way. They lied to the public.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

If true then why did the state government even bother with changing the state regulations to allow indoors without masks per CDC guidance? If this is a slight of hand move it doesn't help with improving trust in government by pretending to follow the science of the CDC.

For some businesses, it would be feasible to ensure that all people at the business are vaccinated.

Why is this a problem? According to the CDC, "Only unvaccinated people are at risk by unmasking." Are we following the CDC guidance or not?

Presumably because Oregon still wants to protect the unvaccinated.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Why would you?

Because science!

presumably because Oregon still wants to protect the unvaccinated.

Then they should say so. You shouldn't have to presume, and it shouldn't be implied that this is for the health and saefty of everybody else.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

Then they should say so. You shouldn't have to presume, and it shouldn't be implied that this is for the health and saefty of everybody else.

From the article posted above:

“Masks continue to save lives and protect people who are not vaccinated,” OHA director Patrick Allen said on Tuesday.​

https://www.opb.org/article/2021/05/18/oregon-health-officials-release-new-rules-for-masks/

 

[jack action]

According to the CDC, "Only unvaccinated people are at risk by unmasking."

OK, someone will have to update my knowledge about vaccines.

Isn't the concept of vaccines that they are never 100% efficient? i.e if a vaccine is 75% efficient, it means that 25% of the vaccinated people are NOT protected by the vaccine, partially or totally?

We want everyone in a group to be vaccinated such that the unprotected (not unvaccinated) number of people is as low as possible. The lower this number is, the more chance the pathogen will die on its own, incapable of reproducing itself. Once this is achieved, we have herd immunity, i.e. everybody is protected, with or without a vaccine, efficient or not.

And herd immunity is an unavoidable ending, with or without a vaccine. The difference is that without a vaccine some people (maybe a lot) may get very sick and possibly die. But once a majority has gotten the pathogen and has survived, herd immunity will be achieved.

So isn't it a false statement - giving a false sense of security - to say that all vaccinated people are protected? Or have I misunderstood how vaccination works?

 

[mfb]

Isn't the concept of vaccines that they are never 100% efficient? i.e if a vaccine is 75% efficient, it means that 25% of the vaccinated people are NOT protected by the vaccine, partially or totally?

It's never a binary thing. For a given exposure you reduce the risk of an infection for essentially everyone. How much depends on the person, the virus variant, the exposure, the timing of vaccination and exposure, random chance and so on. We know that the widely used vaccines are pretty good at reducing infections overall, and really good at avoiding severe infections.
If you take a bath in virus particles it's probably going to kill you with or without vaccine, but an infected person coughing near you is less likely to infect you. As the latter case is more common vaccinated people will be far less likely to get infected, far less likely to carry an infection, and far less likely to infect others (these three directly cause each other). It's not 100%, but it's pretty good.

And herd immunity is an unavoidable ending, with or without a vaccine.

Influenza has been around for a very long time.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

One issue with many of the discussions around re-opening is that people treat "safe" vs "at risk" as a binary whereas in reality, there are some judgement calls here. Driving a car is not a safe activity (auto accidents cause ~40k deaths per year in the US). Eating red meat is not a safe activity (red meat consumption is linked with an increased risk of cancer). Even not wearing masks and refraining from social distancing during normal pre-COVID times was not safe (there are ~12-61k deaths/year from influenza in the US). However, many people participate in these activities daily as they deem them to be acceptable risks.

So, the question to consider is, what level of risk is acceptable to society from COVID-19? This is a physics forum, so let's be quantitative with our answers.

Clinical trials and large-scale observational studies of the COVID-19 vaccines show that the vaccines are highly effective at preventing severe illness and death (many of the clinical trials recorded no deaths in the vaccinated population). A large scale study of the vaccine rollout in Israel estimated a 96.7% protection from death (95% CI 96.0-97.3) (Haas et al. 2021). Currently, the US has recorded ~590k deaths from COVID. Were everyone vaccinated (but still experience the same extent of spread of the disease), the number of deaths would be cut to ~24k (even assuming the protection is on the lower end of the estimate at 96% protection). This level of deaths is within the typical number of deaths from seasonal influenza. Is that an acceptable level of risk?

(note that this is a back-of-the-envelope calculation, and there are many other factors that would need to be considered, such as whether immunity might wane over time or whether we would need to aim for lower numbers because that level of COVID-19 disease combined with a normal influenza season could threaten to overwhelm hospital capacity).

 

[jack action]

So, the question to consider is, what level of risk is acceptable to society from COVID-19? [...]

[...] Is that an acceptable level of risk?

Aren't these questions for individuals, not society as a whole?

Once informed, am I not the one who should decide if I want to use a car or not, eat red meat or not, or wear a mask or not?

If one thinks people are crazy drivers, or farmers don't take care of cows in a healthy way, or people walk carelessly in the streets spreading germs; isn't this just new information for one's risk analysis and act according to what one thinks is the proper limit? Is it OK to set a common limit for everyone? (Is it really common if it is imposed?)

 

[nsaspook]

From the article posted above:

“Masks continue to save lives and protect people who are not vaccinated,” OHA director Patrick Allen said on Tuesday.​

https://www.opb.org/article/2021/05/18/oregon-health-officials-release-new-rules-for-masks/

https://sharedsystems.dhsoha.state.or.us/DHSForms/Served/le3727.pdf

So the solution is to change to this confusing state of affairs of show us your papers that results in unnecessary (Oregon being the only state with this requirement) tension on the part of unmasked users and potential mask card checkers?
California is actually honest about it. They didn't follow CDC guidance for indoors.

https://www.littler.com/publication...g-your-face-mask-duties-list-statewide-orders

 

[Vanadium 50]

So isn't it a false statement - giving a false sense of security - to say that all vaccinated people are protected?

Yes. But that's what the CDC said. And the CDC is the Truth.

One issue with many of the discussions around re-opening is that people treat "safe" vs "at risk" as a binary

True, but can they be forgiven when the CD tells them that? (BTW, fair point on Oregon) "Only unvaccinated people are at risk by unmasking." They could have said "Unmasked people are putting themselves more at risk than others" which is less black-and-white and probably closer to the truth.

 

[Vanadium 50]

show us your papers

Masks provide two functions. A medical one, and a social statement. They say "we are with our Tribe and not those filthy, smelly, diseased, wrong-way voting stinkers". While I would never suggest that the social aspect is driving the decision...well, it's hard to keep these factors out of the back of one's mind when officials make public health decisions.

The reason for "papers, please" is to prevent people who are not fully vaccinated from claiming they are. The thinking seems to be that they are liars, but I suspect that most of the people that will be caught up in the net will be people who think they are fully vaccinated. So, I looked at the pile of papers I got after Dose 2. Nothing says two weeks. The closest is on the back of a slip of paper that looks like it only has one side (and is stapled in between other forms) and says "may not fully protect you until a week or two after the second shot."). I also got an "I'm vaccinated" sticker.

If they really want to keep unvaccinated folk masked up, a cheaper way to do that would be clearer messaging. Instead of "a week or two" they could say "the CDC recommends two weeks". Instead of a sticker then and there, they could mail me one in two weeks.

Of course these only help with the public health aspect. They don't do beans about the social statement.

 

[mfb]

Aren't these questions for individuals, not society as a whole?

Both.

You are not free to use a car in any way you see fit. You need a license, you need to follow traffic rules, your blood alcohol content needs to be below some limits, and many more requirements. Similarly, the risk to infect others makes some behavior a risk to everyone, not just the person being infected. Things like mask requirements are "pandemic traffic rules".

 

[russ_watters]

Masks provide two functions. A medical one, and a social statement.

To me the social statement is somewhat vague/overlapping with the medical issue. I definitely feel shame if I forget to put on my mask in a situation where I feel I should/would have two weeks ago. As if my fly is down. But that feeling also overlaps with a feeling that the mask guidance is ill-conceived...and I feel less sorry because of that. And I'm also having a hard time thinking of good/well-meaning reasons why it has been so badly bungled.

The reason for "papers, please" is to prevent people who are not fully vaccinated from claiming they are. The thinking seems to be that they are liars, but I suspect that most of the people that will be caught up in the net will be people who think they are fully vaccinated.

I lean more toward the "liars" angle, but I must admit since getting the second dose I've relaxed my own standards quite a bit. I suppose the difference is that my hypocrisy only lasts two weeks whereas an anti-vaxxer's malfeasance lasts forever.

 

[nsaspook]

Both.

You are not free to use a car in any way you see fit. You need a license, you need to follow traffic rules, your blood alcohol content needs to be below some limits, and many more requirements. Similarly, the risk to infect others makes some behavior a risk to everyone, not just the person being infected. Things like mask requirements are "pandemic traffic rules".

The rules in Oregon are the equivalent of having to stop at every stores parking lot to show them your drivers license before you can park in their lot after the government has sent a easy to fake license to those that passed a anonymous (no public records) test of driving.

 

[atyy]

They don't do beans about the social statement.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health...axed-mask-rules-to-get-more-people-vaccinated

Not exactly what you meant by "social statement", but still a discussion on social aspects

 

[mfb]

The rules in Oregon are the equivalent of having to stop at every stores parking lot to show them your drivers license before you can park in their lot after the government has sent a easy to fake license to those that passed a anonymous (no public records) test of driving.

No one is required to show anything anywhere. You are not even required to have a vaccination.
The new rule is an alternative route that might be more convenient to drive but can come with a higher accident risk to everyone, so you can only drive there if you show that you can do so safely. You don't need to use that new option. You can just ignore it completely if you like.
I don't know how easy it is to fake the documentation of the vaccination, if that's too easy it's a concern, but you seemed to be more concerned about new extra requirements (which don't exist).

 

[nsaspook]

No one is required to show anything anywhere. You are not even required to have a vaccination.
The new rule is an alternative route that might be more convenient to drive but can come with a higher accident risk to everyone, so you can only drive there if you show that you can do so safely. You don't need to use that new option. You can just ignore it completely if you like.
I don't know how easy it is to fake the documentation of the vaccination, if that's too easy it's a concern, but you seemed to be more concerned about new extra requirements (which don't exist).

The main risks are unlicensed drivers hitting other unlicensed drivers using the driver license analogy, licensed drivers have very low risks.My concern is the loss of incentives (to the remaining not vaccinated) to be vaccinated by reducing the ability to go mask free indoors. My concern is getting more people vaccinated instead of keeping people wearing masks because the risk reduction from getting the shot is so much higher than mandated masking. Most businesses here are defaulting to not checking and keeping the defacto must have mask rules no matter your vaccination status because they can't check up to 10's of thousands of people entering a typical grocery store a week for a hand written paper vaccination card. Large chains like Walmart that use the CDC guidance locally are just ignoring the check requirement because the rule is impracticable and IMO counterproductive.

From the link posted above.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health...axed-mask-rules-to-get-more-people-vaccinated

"What the CDC is betting on is that people care about their own health and they're going to be nervous" about living in a maskless world if they aren't vaccinated, she says. So Milkman predicts that this will spur more people to get their shots.

During a situation without historical precedent, the CDC's move is a gamble. The risk of loosening mask guidelines, of course, is that unvaccinated people will no longer feel compelled to wear masks at all.

But Milkman says the CDC's guidance puts the incentives and the risks largely on the unvaccinated, which is where it should be. She says that the people most likely to be hurt by the change in rules are "the people who aren't doing the right thing and aren't getting the vaccine."

 

[Vanadium 50]

I suppose the difference is that my hypocrisy only lasts two weeks whereas an anti-vaxxer's malfeasance lasts forever.

Well, it lasts until the pandemic wanes. I guess the question is how badly you want these people punished. (For making legal, and possibly even rational, choices that you and I did not) "Peace will come when they love their children more than they hate us", and all that. I mentioned the walk-in who was turned away. Isn't he the guy we should be directing resources towards?

"Flatten the curve" morphed into "crush the curve", and when the policies intended to flatten the curve flattened the curve and didn't crush it, they were often viewed as a failure. Now we're in the mode where "make a vaccine available" is morphing into "stick a needle in everyone, whether they want to or not".

Maybe a better question is "how much vaccination do we need?"

I estimate the number of adults who refuse vaccination to be 10%. We know that 85% of 65+ people (who were first in the queue) have received at least one dose, so presumably intend to receive the other (and 87% of them have done so). This is a lower bound, as this group contains a higher fraction of those who shouldn't be vaccinated. We also have four states with >90% vaccination and seven more close to it. So we will end up with:

• 7% of the population under 12, no change
• 9% of the population refusing vaccination, no change
• 9% of the population getting J&J, transmission risk reduced by 4
• 75% of the population getting Pfizer or Moderna, transmission risk reduced by 20

Altogether, the transmission risk is down by about 4.5. With a no-intervention R of 2-3, we're done. R becomes 0.5 or 0.6 and we just have to wait out the exponential tail. Sure, we still have kids giving it to other kids, but lining up all the Jenny McCarthys and forcibly vaccinating them won't change that.

If you managed to give all the Jenny McCarthys J&J, the 4.5 moves up to 6.6. If you revaccinated the J&J folks with Pfizer or Moderna (assuming that this works and provides the same efficacy as "regular" folks) the 4.5 moves up to 5.0. The absolute maximum is 14.3. (A vaccine with 100% effectiveness given to 100% of the over-12s)

Where are we today? It's hard to tell, partly because finding out who got what when is difficult, and because immunity is not instantly conferred, but it looks like somewhere between 1.8 and 2.1. It's not 1.5 and it's not 3. It will be above 2 in two weeks, if it isn't already.

 

[Dale]

This is a lower bound, as this group contains a higher fraction of those who shouldn't be vaccinated

I wouldn’t make that claim. It may not be a lower bound because that group may systematically have a different rate of vaccine hesitancy or vaccine access.

I estimate the number of adults who refuse vaccination to be 10%.

Do you have a reputable source for that number?

 

[atyy]

• 7% of the population under 12, no change
• 9% of the population refusing vaccination, no change
• 9% of the population getting J&J, transmission risk reduced by 4
• 75% of the population getting Pfizer or Moderna, transmission risk reduced by 20

The transmission risk reduction for Pfizer could be by 4. The 95% reduction in cases for Pfizer is for symptomatic cases, but asymptomatic cases can still transmit (probably not as well as symptomatic cases). Estimates for the reduction in asymptomatic cases range from 50-90% (depending on the study). Overall, the reduction in total infections (symptomatic and asymptomatic) may be about 70%. That number will get lower as viral variants evolve. Unless borders remain closed for much longer, it may not be feasible to have prevention of infection as a goal. Maybe the goals should be prevention of severe disease for those who want the vaccine, and making sure those who don't want the vaccine don't fall sick at such high rates that medical services are overwhelmed and everyone can't get good care.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.22.21255913v1
Impact of vaccination on SARS-CoV-2 cases in the community: a population-based study using the UK’s COVID-19 Infection Survey
Emma Pritchard, Philippa C. Matthews, Nicole Stoesser, David W. Eyre, Owen Gethings, Karina-Doris Vihta, Joel Jones, Thomas House, Harper VanSteenHouse, Iain Bell, John I Bell, John N Newton, Jeremy Farrar, Ian Diamond, Emma Rourke, Ruth Studley, Derrick Crook, Tim Peto, A. Sarah Walker, Koen B. Pouwels, Coronavirus Infection Survey team

 

[mfb]

My concern is the loss of incentives (to the remaining not vaccinated) to be vaccinated by reducing the ability to go mask free indoors. My concern is getting more people vaccinated instead of keeping people wearing masks because the risk reduction from getting the shot is so much higher than mandated masking. Most businesses here are defaulting to not checking and keeping the defacto must have mask rules no matter your vaccination status because they can't check up to 10's of thousands of people entering a typical grocery store a week for a hand written paper vaccination card. Large chains like Walmart that use the CDC guidance locally are just ignoring the check requirement because the rule is impracticable and IMO counterproductive.

There are a couple of changed incentives and it's hard to tell how important which one will be. What do you mean by reducing the ability to go mask free indoors?

* People could interpret the return of unmasked indoor stays as sign that the pandemic would be over -> smaller incentive to get vaccinated
* Infection risk could go up in places that don't check -> larger incentive (probably a small effect for people who are not interested in a vaccine already)
* When vaccinated they can stop wearing masks in places that check (without faking a card) -> larger incentive

 

[Vanadium 50]

Do you have a reputable source for that number?

Nope.

I gave the basis. 85% is based on the 65+ population. The 90% is based on 4 states that are at the 90+% level for eligible adults.

A data point i did not use is that the number of people at my place of employment (which is overweighted by eds and meds, but it is not exclusively so - a surprisingly large number of support people are required) answering "disagree" to the question "I would want to be vaccinated as soon as possible" is 8%. It's probably biased high by the eds and meds, and asks a different question: "right away" does not mean "ever". I waited my turn, even though I had a chance to cut in line. Where does that put me?

But from a public policy perspective, I don't think this matters. Sure, we'd like to take Janny McCarthy and tar, feather and force-vaccinate her (probably not in that order) but it's an expensive proposition, and even at 10% of adults, that's still 30 million people.

I'm arguing that we should spend less effort of punishment and "prevenge" and instead use that effort in places where it would do more good, even if less emotionally satisfying. The walk-in who was turned away? That's the guy we should be helping.

 

[nsaspook]

There are a couple of changed incentives and it's hard to tell how important which one will be. What do you mean by reducing the ability to go mask free indoors?

* People could interpret the return of unmasked indoor stays as sign that the pandemic would be over -> smaller incentive to get vaccinated
* Infection risk could go up in places that don't check -> larger incentive (probably a small effect for people who are not interested in a vaccine already)
* When vaccinated they can stop wearing masks in places that check (without faking a card) -> larger incentive

What I mean is most small business operators here are choosing not to allow indoor unmasking under any vaccination status even if it's allowed by the state of Oregon rules. They don't want to check people at the door so the ability to to go mask free indoors is reduced by the binary choice of, check everyone to allow the fully vaccinated to unmask if they want or don't check anyone and prevent the fully vaccinated from making a allow choice under state rules.

 

[Vanadium 50]

binary choice of, check everyone to allow the fully vaccinated to unmask if they want or don't check anyone

Additionally, the card - at least my card - isn't really suitable for constant checking. It's 20% longer and 50% wider than a credit card so doesn't really fit anywhere. I was instructed not to laminate it. There is no procedure for getting a duplicate. And, since we're talking about no-goodniks, it's trivially forged, and for that matter, nobody checked my for an ID. I could have paid a homeless guy $20 and a bottle of ripple to get a shot for me and got a card that way.

 

[mfb]

What I mean is most small business operators here are choosing not to allow indoor unmasking under any vaccination status even if it's allowed by the state of Oregon rules. They don't want to check people at the door so the ability to to go mask free indoors is reduced by the binary choice of, check everyone to allow the fully vaccinated to unmask if they want or don't check anyone and prevent the fully vaccinated from making a allow choice under state rules.

Then how does that change the incentive of people to get vaccinated?

 

[Dale]

I gave the basis. 85% is based on the 65+ population. The 90% is based on 4 states that are at the 90+% level for eligible adults.

I don’t think I would characterize that as a “lower bound”. It is at best merely an estimate with a lot of uncertainty. It is not clear that the 85% of the 65+ will generalize to other age groups and it is not clear that the 90% for 4 states will generalize to other states. So to assume that the generalization must go one way is suspect.

I am not getting into the politics, but just challenging your estimate. I would characterize the uncertainty as large and without specific evidence to the contrary would assume that it is approximately symmetric (in the log odds scale).

 

[Ygggdrasil]

Masks provide two functions. A medical one, and a social statement. They say "we are with our Tribe and not those filthy, smelly, diseased, wrong-way voting stinkers". While I would never suggest that the social aspect is driving the decision...well, it's hard to keep these factors out of the back of one's mind when officials make public health decisions.

The reason for "papers, please" is to prevent people who are not fully vaccinated from claiming they are. The thinking seems to be that they are liars, but I suspect that most of the people that will be caught up in the net will be people who think they are fully vaccinated. So, I looked at the pile of papers I got after Dose 2. Nothing says two weeks. The closest is on the back of a slip of paper that looks like it only has one side (and is stapled in between other forms) and says "may not fully protect you until a week or two after the second shot."). I also got an "I'm vaccinated" sticker.

If they really want to keep unvaccinated folk masked up, a cheaper way to do that would be clearer messaging. Instead of "a week or two" they could say "the CDC recommends two weeks". Instead of a sticker then and there, they could mail me one in two weeks.

Of course these only help with the public health aspect. They don't do beans about the social statement.

Refusal to wear masks and comply with masking mandates is just as much if not more of a political statement than wearing a mask. Indeed, when masking became a politically divisive issue, it's hard to say that people following CDC directives and state/local laws to wear masks were the ones making a political statement.

Do politics play a role in the current masking regulations? Of course, given that political figures are making these choices, the disparity in masking regulations between "red" states vs "blue" states, and the relative weighting of values (social responsibility vs individual liberty) at play in the debate. However, I would caution in assuming the "tribal" explanation as is a main reason many individuals would choose to continue wearing masks in public.

What I mean is most small business operators here are choosing not to allow indoor unmasking under any vaccination status even if it's allowed by the state of Oregon rules. They don't want to check people at the door so the ability to to go mask free indoors is reduced by the binary choice of, check everyone to allow the fully vaccinated to unmask if they want or don't check anyone and prevent the fully vaccinated from making a allow choice under state rules.

State rules allow men to appear in public without shirts or shoes, but stores are within their right to refuse service to people without shirts and/or shoes. Businesses can and do restrict peoples behavior, which is fine, in part, because consumers are able to choose which businesses they patronize.

 

[nsaspook]

Then how does that change the incentive of people to get vaccinated?

Because humans judge risk by their peers and possibly modify their behaviors during interactions with peers. If we limit (by restrictive business checking rules) positive unmasked interactions with peers who have followed the previous non-vaccinated masking rules and gotten fully vaccinated in social settings, to me, that's a disincentive.

Vaccination is what's important now to reduce sickness and death in the US, not masks. The CDC guidance is an obvious incentive to get vaccinated using the masked and unmasked as examples.


I go to the local Joe's bar with Tom (a person I know and trust) and see fully vaccinated Tom without a mask laughing and talking to fully vaccinated Sally without a mask with little or no risk to COVID-19 but I'm not vaccinated. Sure, I could lie or fake a card but there is a peer based incentive to actually get fully vaccinated for my personal safety.

The state of Oregon thinks incentives are a useful tool because they are using the Lottery to push vaccination.
https://www.opb.org/article/2021/05/21/oregon-covid-19-lottery-briefing/

Oregon to offer $1 million lottery drawing for COVID vaccine recipients​

 

[Vanadium 50]

Refusal to wear masks and comply with masking mandates is just as much if not more of a political statement than wearing a mask. Indeed, when masking became a politically divisive issue, it's hard to say that people following CDC directives and state/local laws to wear masks were the ones making a political statement.

I never said otherwise.

However, I would caution in assuming the "tribal" explanation as is a main reason many individuals would choose to continue wearing masks in public.

Never said that. Never even meant that. I did intend to suggest that when governments adopt policies that tend towards the punative/coercive and do not involve policies that are less so and (I've argued) more likely to help, the policy makers might have the tribal aspect in the back of their minds.

And I think @nsaspook nailed it: "Vaccination is what's important now to reduce sickness and death in the US, not masks."

I am not getting into the politics, but just challenging your estimate.

Feel free to come up with your own. I outline what went into mine. I think it is better than the (as far as I can tell) evidence-free default position that the number of vaccine refuseniks is large and that they are coming from a certain place in the political spectrum.

You mentioned politics and the four states. I think people have been too quick to go there. It is true that these states are blue. Ranked #2, #3, #9 and #17. But it's a mistake to think of New England as homogeneous. You get out of eyeshot of water in Maine and it gets very rural, very poor and very red very fast. Even Massachusetts is relatively red between Worcester and Springfield.

People - like the NYT - are pointing out states like Alabama, Mississippi and Georgia as cases where their political redness is causing the low vaccination rates. (#48, 49 and 50). But I see at least two other reasons. One is that these states are very rural. (Rank #4, 9 and Georgia is #28 with one large city), and we previously discussed the challenges rural areas face. Another is that these states have a large African-American population (#1, #2 and #6), and African-Americans are being vaccinated at 3/4 of the rate of the population as a whole.

Scapegoating our political foes might make us feel better, but won't solve the problem. (And indeed, the places where Africa-Americans lag the most in vaccination are DC, NYC and Maryland. Hardly bastions of redness)

 

[Dale]

Feel free to come up with your own. I outline what went into mine.

My main objection is the claim that it is a lower bound.