When will the current wave peak in the US?

[iluv2travel]

I like the direction this thread took. 👍🏻

Yes, lots of great Torah thoughts shared! Thank you.

Seems like this is having somewhat of an effect

https://forums.dansdeals.com/index.php?topic=123131.0

[ExGingi]

That's an interesting distinction that didn't occur to me previously, however I'm skeptical if you're right. He's explaining ויאמינו בה׳ ובמשה עבדו, and that's talking about both of them. He also cites Yisro, and the Pasuk he cites clearly says Yisro was only convinced about  the existence of Hashem by Krias Hayam, nothing about Moshe ( עתה ידעתי כי גדול ה׳ מכל אלוקים, כי בדבר אשר זדו עליהם).
We're discussing whether or not the Makkos were evidence of the existence of Hashem, not what anybody believed.

Go back and reread it. You are claiming things which are simply not there (in the text you copied, which is what I saw).

[PlatinumGuy]

This just leads right into something I said over on Shabbos.

The גמ' סנהדרין says that וא"ר אחא בר חנינא א"ר אסי א"ר יוחנן אכל המברך על החדש בזמנו כאילו מקבל פני שכינה כתיב הכא (שמות יב, ב) החדש הזה וכתיב התם (שמות טו, ב) זה אלי ואנוהו and the connection between ראש חודש and יציאת מצרים is clear from the pasuk putting them together. Why are they so connected? I heark in the name of the Alter miKelm that the explaination is based on the Ramban at the end of last week's parsha that it is from the nisim of mitzrayim that we see the "smaller" nissim as well. There is very little that looks as natural as the waxing and waning of the moon. Wwe can calculate the new moon a thousand years from now with great accuracy. This is so much more predictable than almost any other aspect of nature. When we say ברוך אתה ה' מחדש חדשים we are saying how we see that even this seemingly natural phenomenon is just as much of a miracle as kriyas yam suf and it is as if we are mekabel the shechina just as they did then.

This gives SO MUCh more meaning to kiddush levana!

Whether this virus is a supernatural interference from Hashem, or a power vested in nature when the world was created, it is testament to the fallibility of man compared to the mightiness of hashem and the rest of the creation. All the nCoV-2 virus particles in the world can fit into a teaspoon, but they completely uprooted global life, even at the height of technological capability.

כִּי-אֶרְאֶה שָׁמֶיךָ, מַעֲשֵׂה אֶצְבְּעֹתֶיךָ. יָרֵחַ וְכוֹכָבִים, אֲשֶׁר כּוֹנָנְתָּה. מָה-אֱנוֹשׁ כִּי-תִזְכְּרֶנּוּ; וּבֶן-אָדָם, כִּי תִפְקְדֶנּוּ.

Go back and reread it. You are claiming things which are simply not there (in the text you copied, which is what I saw).

I did reread it several times, and then backed up every comment I made. If you explain what exactly I claimed that is not in there, I can answer your argument or realize that I was wrong.

[ExGingi]

I did reread it several times, and then backed up every comment I made. If you explain what exactly I claimed that is not in there, I can answer your argument or realize that I was wrong.

Let's make it simple. Why don't you quote what you claim to have read there and then quote the actual words where you see that.

[PlatinumGuy]

Let's make it simple. Why don't you quote what you claim to have read there and then quote the actual words where you see that.

We're going around in circles, while I'm explaining why I think you're wrong, and you're not explaining why you think I'm wrong. But here you go:

The Abarbanel has natural explanations for the makkos too

I supported that statement that the Makkos were not evidence of Yad Hashem, saying:

The Ran in Drashos Haran says there was no conclusive evidence of the existence of Hashem until Krias Hayam, which is why it says then ויאמינו בה׳ ובמשה עבדו.

The Ran says:

אבל יש כאן שאלה שלאחר קריעת ים סוף מצינו כתוב ויאמינו בה' ובמשה עבדו, וא"כ נראה שקודם זה לא היתה אמונתם שלימה עליהם:

Implying the Emunah IN HASHEM and in Moshe was incomplete until Kriyas Hayam

And the Ran says further about the Makkos themself, that they could have been accomplished by skulduggery, and hence not evidence of the existence of Hashem (since Moshe could have done them without Hashem):

כן היה ראוי אליו לחשוב שכל מה שעשה משה רבינו עליו השלום לא בא מאת הש"י אבל נעשה בחכמה וברמיה

You then misunderstood when I said there was no evidence of the existence of Hashem in the 10 makos to be saying Bnei Yisroel/Paraho didn't believe in Hashem:

Not about doubting "the existence of Hashem" ח"ו!

And I attempted to clarify that twice:

He's explaining ויאמינו בה׳ ובמשה עבדו, and that's talking about both of them. He also cites Yisro, and the Pasuk he cites clearly says Yisro was only convinced about the existence of Hashem by Krias Hayam, nothing about Moshe ( עתה ידעתי כי גדול ה׳ מכל אלוקים, כי בדבר אשר זדו עליהם).
We're discussing whether or not the Makkos were evidence of the existence of Hashem, not what anybody believed.

And the Ran says very explicitly the 10 Makkos were not evidence of the existence of Hashem. That in no way proves or contradicts the statement that Paraoh & Bnei Yisroel believed in hashem.

To summarize: I believe I had chicken soup for dinner, but this post isn't evidence of that. Hashem exists, but the 10 makkos alone didn't prove it. The two aren't contradictory.

I'm happy to accept that you're right and I'm mistaken, but I beg you to explain to me precisely how so.

[ExGingi]

To summarize: I believe I had chicken soup for dinner, but this post isn't evidence of that. Hashem exists, but the 10 makkos alone didn't prove it. The two aren't contradictory.

I'm happy to accept that you're right and I'm mistaken, but I beg you to explain to me precisely how so.

Too many details to properly respond on a phone at this time. If I have time tomorrow at the desktop I will try to get to it.

But in essence, unless we speak a totally different language (which is entirely within the realm of likely possibilities), I don't see where you get any premise that בנ"י or להבדיל even פרעה, ever doubted the EXISTENCE of Hashem, or that the מכות were supposed to prove Hashem's existence.

The entire דרשות הר"ן quoted is talking about the Yidden (potentially) doubting whether מרע"ה is indeed a messenger of Hashem, and doing everything as Hashem's messenger. Since with the might and אמת of Hashem יציאת מצרים could have been accomplished in a much more straightforward way, and that קרי"ס removed any such doubt.

[PlatinumGuy]

Too many details to properly respond on a phone at this time. If I have time tomorrow at the desktop I will try to get to it.

But in essence, unless we speak a totally different language (which is entirely within the realm of likely possibilities), I don't see where you get any premise that בנ"י or להבדיל even פרעה, ever doubted the EXISTENCE of Hashem,

Are you not reading the posts? I must have said 4 times I didn't comment on what they believed or didn't believe

The Abarabnel was cited that the Makkos could be explained by nature without being evidence of the existence of hashem, and I brought a Ran that says exactly that.

Let me say it again: Bney Yisroel & Paraoh believed in hashem, but the Ran says the Makkos weren't conclusive evidence of the existence of Hashem.  Do you agree with this statement?

The Ran also says Yisro did not believe in Hashem until קריעת ים סוף convinced him of Hashem's existence.

The Ran, in the first line, also does imply there was a Chisaron in Bney Yisroel's Emunah until קריעת ים סוף resolved it, n't mean to say so:

אבל יש כאן שאלה שלאחר קריעת ים סוף מצינו כתוב ויאמינו בה' ובמשה עבדו, וא"כ נראה שקודם זה לא היתה אמונתם שלימה עליהם

That explicitly discusses both belief in HASHEM and belief in Moshe. I doubt the Ran only means to ask on one of them although I'm happy to concede it's possible.

I don't see where you get any premise.... that the מכות were supposed to prove Hashem's existence.

I'm specifically saying they didn't. That's the whole point.

[ExGingi]

Let me say it again: Bney Yisroel & Paraoh believed in hashem, but the Ran says the Makkos weren't conclusive evidence of the existence of Hashem.  Do you agree with this statement?

No! "Existence of Hashem" מאן דכר שמיה?

The Ran also says Yisro did not believe in Hashem until קריעת ים סוף convinced him of Hashem's existence.

No he does not. He only quotes יתרו in the context of בדבר אשר זדו עליהם. Which he says was the reason for bringing about the מכות in a way that פרעה could deny that מרע"ה is coming as a messenger of Hashem.

The Ran, in the first line, also does imply there was a Chisaron in Bney Yisroel's Emunah until קריעת ים סוף resolved it, n't mean to say so:

אבל יש כאן שאלה שלאחר קריעת ים סוף מצינו כתוב ויאמינו בה' ובמשה עבדו, וא"כ נראה שקודם זה לא היתה אמונתם שלימה עליהם

That explicitly discusses both belief in HASHEM and belief in Moshe. I doubt the Ran only means to ask on one of them although I'm happy to concede it's possible.

I don't know why in the world you would think this is talking about "belief in HASHEM" (BTW, what does that mean?) when the entire flow and context is about the belief in מרע"ה as the messenger of Hashem delivering Hashem's message.

This is evidenced in the piece you quoted, but is even clearer if you back up to סעי׳ מא which is where this context starts. This is in פרשת שופטים and about when to trust (believe) a נביא as it says "איכה נדע הדבר אשר לא דברו השם". Continuing on that theme the Ran explains why it says ויאמינו בהשם ובמשה עבדו after it already previously said ויאמן העם (which is a contextual continuation of והן לא יאמינו לי... כי יאמרו לא נגלה אליך השם).

I'm specifically saying they didn't. That's the whole point.

When saying that they didn't you seem to imply that one would have had a הוה אמינא that they would.

[PlatinumGuy]

No! "Existence of Hashem" מאן דכר שמיה?

ויאמינו בה׳ Is literally the opening statement. It means belief in the existence, powers, and intentions of Hashem.

I don't know why in the world you would think this is talking about "belief in HASHEM" (BTW, what does that mean?)

ויאמינו בה׳ means belief in Hashem, no? So the Ran says pretty clearly the Pasuk implies Bnei Yisroel belief in Hashem was only complete after Yam Suf and beforehand it was incomplete. T

No he does not. He only quotes יתרו in the context of בדבר אשר זדו עליהם. Which he says was the reason for bringing about the מכות in a way that פרעה could deny that מרע"ה is coming as a messenger of Hashem.

Go look at the story of Yisro which he is discussing. The Torah says Yisro became convinced Hashem is the almighty, and converted to Judaism. The Ran says explicitly this only happened after Krias Yam Suf, he wasn’t convinced by the 10 Makkos.

[PlatinumGuy]

When saying that they didn't you seem to imply that one would have had a הוה אמינא that they would.

Let’s get this straight. You’re saying nobody would have a הווא אמינא to assume the Makkos prove Hashem exists and it’s obvious they can be explained to occur without acknowledging Hashem exists. @aygart and I think it’s a dramatic Chiddush of the Ram & Abarbanel that the Makkos aren’t conclusive proof of the existence & power of Hashem.

Here are a few pesukim that would give one such הווא אמינא:

1) Before the Makkos וְיָדְע֤וּ מִצְרַ֙יִם֙ כִּֽי־אֲנִ֣י יְהוָ֔ה בִּנְטֹתִ֥י אֶת־יָדִ֖י עַל־מִצְרָ֑יִם

2) Dam כֹּ֚ה אָמַ֣ר יְהוָ֔ה בְּזֹ֣את תֵּדַ֔ע כִּ֖י אֲנִ֣י יְהוָ֑ה הִנֵּ֨ה אָנֹכִ֜י מַכֶּ֣ה ׀ בַּמַּטֶּ֣ה אֲשֶׁר־בְּיָדִ֗י עַל־הַמַּ֛יִם אֲשֶׁ֥ר בַּיְאֹ֖ר וְנֶהֶפְכ֥וּ לְדָֽם׃

3) Tzfardeya: לְמַ֣עַן תֵּדַ֔ע כִּי־אֵ֖ין כַּיהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵֽינוּ׃

4) Kinim: וַיֹּאמְר֤וּ הַֽחַרְטֻמִּים֙ אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֔ה אֶצְבַּ֥ע אֱלֹהִ֖ים הִ֑וא (HT @AsherO)

5) Arov: לְמַ֣עַן תֵּדַ֔ע כִּ֛י אֲנִ֥י יְהוָ֖ה בְּקֶ֥רֶב הָאָֽרֶץ׃

6) Dever: בַּעֲב֣וּר תֵּדַ֔ע כִּ֛י אֵ֥ין כָּמֹ֖נִי בְּכָל־הָאָֽרֶץ

7) Barad: לְמַ֣עַן תֵּדַ֔ע כִּ֥י לַיהוָ֖ה הָאָֽרֶץ

Arbeh: וִֽידַעְתֶּ֖ם כִּי־אֲנִ֥י יְהוָֽה׃



That’s all from a cursory check now. I’m also fairly certain the Ramban and other Rishonim argue on the Ran and do hold the Makkos were conclusive evidence of Hashems existence and power.

[ExGingi]

ויאמינו בה׳ Is literally the opening statement.

No, it is not! The opening statement is earlier and is "והנה צותה לנו התורה בכאן לסמוך על נביא אשר יתנבא בשם ה׳" or אב"א a little further "אבל מ"מ עדיין צריך ביאור לשאול מדוע לא פרשה לנו התורה הדרכים שעליהם יאמן הנביא".

It means belief in the existence, powers, and intentions of Hashem.

Where do you get that interpretation from?
 

ויאמינו בה׳ means belief in Hashem, no? So the Ran says pretty clearly the Pasuk implies Bnei Yisroel belief in Hashem was only complete after Yam Suf and beforehand it was incomplete. T

Are you missing the forest for the trees?  You are saying what you think the Ran says that the possuk implies. Let's first see what the Ran explicitly says, and in context.

The Ran is questioning why it says ויאמינו בה׳ ובמשה עבדו after it already said earlier ויאמן העם. So he's asking what changed (and this is all about believing מרע"ה that he is coming as a messenger of Hashem. That is what ויאמן העם was about, and that is what the Ran is saying ויאמינו בהשם ובמשה עבדו is about).

Go look at the story of Yisro which he is discussing. The Torah says Yisro became convinced Hashem is the almighty, and converted to Judaism. The Ran says explicitly this only happened after Krias Yam Suf, he wasn’t convinced by the 10 Makkos.

Please quote the words of the Ran that explicitly say that.

[ExGingi]

Let’s get this straight. You’re saying nobody would have a הווא אמינא to assume the Makkos prove Hashem exists

Close enough. More accurately I would say that there's no הוה אמינא to assume that the reason/purpose of the Makkos is to prove existence of Hashem.

and it’s obvious they can be explained to occur without acknowledging Hashem exists.

I never said that.

[aygart]

Close enough. More accurately I would say that there's no הוה אמינא to assume that the reason/purpose of the Makkos is to prove existence of Hashem.
I never said that.

אוַיֹּ֤אמֶר ה֙ אֶל־משֶׁ֔ה בֹּ֖א אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֑ה כִּֽי־אֲנִ֞י הִכְבַּ֤דְתִּי אֶת־לִבּוֹ֙ וְאֶת־לֵ֣ב עֲבָדָ֔יו לְמַ֗עַן שִׁתִ֛י אֹֽתֹתַ֥י אֵ֖לֶּה בְּקִרְבּֽוֹ:
בוּלְמַ֡עַן תְּסַפֵּר֩ בְּאָזְנֵ֨י בִנְךָ֜ וּבֶן־בִּנְךָ֗ אֵ֣ת אֲשֶׁ֤ר הִתְעַלַּ֨לְתִּי֙ בְּמִצְרַ֔יִם וְאֶת־אֹֽתֹתַ֖י אֲשֶׁר־שַׂ֣מְתִּי בָ֑ם וִֽידַעְתֶּ֖ם כִּֽי־אֲנִ֥י ה:

[ExGingi]

אוַיֹּ֤אמֶר ה֙ אֶל־משֶׁ֔ה בֹּ֖א אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֑ה כִּֽי־אֲנִ֞י הִכְבַּ֤דְתִּי אֶת־לִבּוֹ֙ וְאֶת־לֵ֣ב עֲבָדָ֔יו לְמַ֗עַן שִׁתִ֛י אֹֽתֹתַ֥י אֵ֖לֶּה בְּקִרְבּֽוֹ:
בוּלְמַ֡עַן תְּסַפֵּר֩ בְּאָזְנֵ֨י בִנְךָ֜ וּבֶן־בִּנְךָ֗ אֵ֣ת אֲשֶׁ֤ר הִתְעַלַּ֨לְתִּי֙ בְּמִצְרַ֔יִם וְאֶת־אֹֽתֹתַ֖י אֲשֶׁר־שַׂ֣מְתִּי בָ֑ם וִֽידַעְתֶּ֖ם כִּֽי־אֲנִ֥י ה:

Quoting psukim from the beginning of parshas Bo to someone who davens in 770 every year on Shabbos before Yud Shvat (for those unfamiliar, there are probably 100 or more מניינים for קריאת התורה that Shabbos) is almost like להבדיל what paroh said to Moshe and Aharon: תבן אתם מכניסים לעפריים?

I am very well familiar with these psukim. What are you trying to say?

[aygart]

Quoting psukim from the beginning of parshas Bo to someone who daven in 770 every year on Shabbos before Yud Shvat is almost like להבדיל what paroh said to Moshe and Aharon: תבן אתם מכניסים לעפריים?

I am very well familiar with these psukim. What are you trying to say?

There is a very clear implication in psukim that the purpose of the makos was for paroh and the yidden to recognize hashem fully. I understand that there are other ways to explain it, but to say that

there's no הוה אמינא to assume that the reason/purpose of the Makkos is to prove existence of Hashem.

is strange.

[ExGingi]

There is a very clear implication in psukim that the purpose of the makos was for paroh and the yidden to recognize hashem fully. I understand that there are other ways to explain it, but to say thatis strange.

Again.  EXISTENCE מאן דכר שמיה?

[avromie7]

+/- 30%
Between Jan 14 & Jan 21, 6000 NH residents died, HIGHER THAN ANY WEEK BEFORE
https://covidtracking.com/data/long-term-care
That’s a wishful fantasy that has no base in fact or educated opinion and is dead wrong about nursing homes, as it is about Lakewood, BP/Williamsburg, frum communities in Israel, and Manaus, Brazil.

The only change is behavior, vaccine, and miracles.

I believe there are around 45k LTCs in the US, this means more than 2/3 already had outbreaks. Anecdotally, any NH operators that I'm familiar with in the North East had outbreaks in almost all of their facilities including 1 who had 2 homes that didn't have outbreaks only to have 50 residents test positive a week before they were scheduled to get the vaccine at one of their 2 facilities that didn't yet have an outbreak.

In states like NJ, the overwhelming majority of NHs had outbreaks. If you dig deeper into the data you'll see from 7/2/20-1/21/21 there were 1,085 deaths in LTCs, compare that to 5,681 death in NJ for the same time period, that means 19.1% of death were from LTCs. Moving the starting point to 11/5 drops it down to 18.1%. Because NHs were his so hard in the beginning, there simply aren't as many susceptible residents. The reality may be different in other states that weren't hit so hard in the beginning.

You keep bringing up Manaus, Brazil, the amount of assumptions needed to come up with an estimate of 76% infection rate is ridiculous, there's no way to say with any degree of certainty that that number is anywhere near accurate. You need to assume there is a major undercount to get to such a high assumption, and you need to assume that the sample is really the same as the general population, maybe there is something that makes the same people most likely to catch COVID also more likely to donate blood.

[PlatinumGuy]

Again.  EXISTENCE מאן דכר שמיה?

'Recognizing hashem' to most people means recognizing the existence, power, and intentions of Hashem.

I quoted 8 Peskuim that seem to imply that, and there are many more.

We can go round and round in circles, but this his how we understood that.

I believe there are around 45k LTCs in the US, this means more than 2/3 already had outbreaks

In states like NJ, the overwhelming majority of NHs had outbreaks

Get it in your head - HAVING AN OUTBREAK DOESN'T STOP THE NEXT OUTBREAK

If you dig deeper into the data you'll see from 7/2/20-1/21/21 there were 1,085 deaths in LTCs, compare that to 5,681 death in NJ for the same time period, that means 19.1% of death were from LTCs. Moving the starting point to 11/5 drops it down to 18.1%.

Do you not realize you're proving my point? From July to November the percentage went down by 1% despite your mistaken premise that NH's are no longer a large portion of deaths.

NJ LTC deaths are a smaller proportion of overall NJ deaths that the national average. Across the country they were around 50% early on and are NOW around 30% after NHs learnt how to cope with it better and have access to better protective resources.

THERE IS NO HERD IMMUNITY ANYWHERE

[PlatinumGuy]

Again.  EXISTENCE מאן דכר שמיה?

There is a very clear implication in psukim that the purpose of the makos was for paroh and the yidden to recognize hashem fully. I understand that there are other ways to explain it, but to say thatis strange.

See Ramban Shemos 13/16, that explicitly says the Makkos were intended to prove that hashem exists, and various elements of his existence, powers, and intent.

הנה מעת היות ע"ג בעולם מימי אנוש החלו הדעות להשתבש באמונה מהם כופרים בעיקר ואומרים כי העולם קדמון כחשו בה' ויאמרו לא הוא ומהם מכחישים בידיעתו הפרטית ואמרו איכה ידע אל ויש דעה בעליון (תהלים עג יא) ומהם שיודו בידיעה ומכחישים בהשגחה ויעשו אדם כדגי הים שלא ישגיח האל בהם ואין עמהם עונש או שכר יאמרו עזב ה' את הארץ וכאשר ירצה האלהים בעדה או ביחיד ויעשה עמהם מופת בשנוי מנהגו של עולם וטבעו יתברר לכל בטול הדעות האלה כלם כי המופת הנפלא מורה שיש לעולם אלוה מחדשו ויודע ומשגיח ויכול וכאשר יהיה המופת ההוא נגזר תחלה מפי נביא יתברר ממנו עוד אמתת הנבואה כי ידבר האלהים את האדם ויגלה סודו אל עבדיו הנביאים ותתקיים עם זה התורה כלה ולכן יאמר הכתוב במופתים למען תדע כי אני ה' בקרב הארץ (לעיל ח יח) להורות על ההשגחה כי לא עזב אותה למקרים כדעתם ואמר (שם ט כט) למען תדע כי לה' הארץ להורות על החידוש כי הם שלו שבראם מאין ואמר (שם ט יד) בעבור תדע כי אין כמוני בכל הארץ להורות על היכולת שהוא שליט בכל אין מעכב בידו כי בכל זה היו המצריים מכחישים או מסתפקים אם כן האותות והמופתים הגדולים עדים נאמנים באמונת הבורא ובתורה כלה ובעבור כי הקב"ה לא יעשה אות ומופת בכל דור לעיני כל רשע או כופר יצוה אותנו שנעשה תמיד זכרון ואות לאשר ראו עינינו ונעתיק הדבר אל בנינו ובניהם לבניהם ובניהם לדור אחרון והחמיר מאד בענין הזה כמו שחייב כרת באכילת חמץ (לעיל יב טו) ובעזיבת הפסח (במדבר ט יג) והצריך שנכתוב כל מה שנראה אלינו באותות ובמופתים על ידינו ועל בין עינינו ולכתוב אותו עוד על פתחי הבתים במזוזות ושנזכיר זה בפינו בבקר ובערב כמו שאמרו (ברכות כא) אמת ויציב דאורייתא ממה שכתוב (דברים טז ג) למען תזכור את יום צאתך מארץ מצרים כל ימי חייך ושנעשה סכה בכל שנה וכן כל כיוצא בהן מצות רבות זכר ליציאת מצרים והכל להיות לנו בכל הדורות עדות במופתים שלא ישתכחו ולא יהיה פתחון פה לכופר להכחיש אמונת האלהים כי הקונה מזוזה בזוז אחד וקבעה בפתחו ונתכוון בענינה כבר הודה בחדוש העולם ובידיעת הבורא והשגחתו

[avromie7]

Get it in your head - HAVING AN OUTBREAK DOESN'T STOP THE NEXT OUTBREAK

On a macro level, this is patently false. When the majority of residents at a NH are immune, the likeliness of another outbreak is severely diminished. Yes in an entire city an outbreak in 1 place doesn't stop an outbreak across town, that's because they're separate groups of people who happen to live within the same municipality, the same can not be said about a NH. While it's certainly possible to have another outbreak, you can't expect there to be anywhere near the number of deaths as the first time around. Out of ~3 Million LTC residents, 1.2 million have tested positive. While there is turnover, that is a huge percentage of residents who are immune without the vaccine.

NJ LTC deaths are a smaller proportion of overall NJ deaths that the national average. Across the country they were around 50% early on and are NOW around 30% after NHs learnt how to cope with it better and have access to better protective resources.

The same can be said about everyone else too.


I'm sure the vaccine is preventing many deaths in NHs, I just think you're overstating the difference it makes in regards to overall COVID deaths. Due to the lag, we're going to continue seeing high numbers of LTC deaths for weeks or even months after cases drop.