Printable View
I tried to rep Paul for apologising but, he's "on spread" (even though I still entirely disagree about where to source reliable health info, he has said other things that make sense)
JustTheDad is supremely patient.
There are other docs on this site (including one I know of actively posting in other threads today, but I won't point him out) and they are notable by their absence from this thread, they all ran away from it :)
[QUOTE=mgftp;1638950573]On the surface of course. Any change at work is frustrating.
But I think the reality is unless you are hired somewhere after Covid vaccines are available and they stated they aren't required before you accepted and offer it's just the way it is. Environments change and employers change job requirements. All work is at will, and anyone can leave when they like. For the past two weeks my boss's boss has been a clueless a-hole and I've thought about walking, lol.
Because the question is irrelevant to your original "point" I was criticizing. Beyond that I am puzzled halfway through, "If those that had Covid, do not need the vaccine"... Where are you even getting that? I certainly never said it.
Can you please disclose your education since you keep claiming others are uneducated. Thank you.[/QUOTE]
Im not trying to be a jerk, I apologize if I came across that way, yes, some of my statements were rude, I acknowledge that, and I am trying to learn as I go along, not understanding the seemingly contradictory narrative. Please help me to understand..if the below is true...
“Immunity to the Coronavirus May Last Years, New Data Hint
Blood samples from recovered patients suggest a powerful, long-lasting immune response, researchers reported.”
[url]https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/11/17/health/coronavirus-immunity.amp.html[/url]
“Persistence of Antibody and Cellular Immune Responses in COVID-19 patients over Nine Months after Infection”
[url]https://academic.oup.com/jid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/infdis/jiab255/6274562[/url]
This saying that those that had Covid, do not need the vaccine (as they are not in the trial testing)...then why does 90% of the population need to be vaccinated?
[QUOTE=OldFartTom;1638951743]I tried to rep Paul for apologising but, he's "on spread" (even though I still entirely disagree about where to source reliable health info, he has said other things that make sense)
JustTheDad is supremely patient.
There are other docs on this site (including one I know of actively posting in other threads today, but I won't point him out) and they are notable by their absence from this thread, they all ran away from it :)[/QUOTE]
I’ve been pretty rude, certainly don’t deserve a rep, but thank you. There is a lot about Covid & the vaccine that I find extremely dubious. That’s all.
[QUOTE=Paul Kreul;1638951973]Im not trying to be a jerk, I apologize if I came across that way, yes, some of my statements were rude, I acknowledge that, and I am trying to learn as I go along, not understanding the seemingly contradictory narrative. Please help me to understand..if the below is true...
“Immunity to the Coronavirus May Last Years, New Data Hint
Blood samples from recovered patients suggest a powerful, long-lasting immune response, researchers reported.”
[url]https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/11/17/health/coronavirus-immunity.amp.html[/url]
“Persistence of Antibody and Cellular Immune Responses in COVID-19 patients over Nine Months after Infection”
[url]https://academic.oup.com/jid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/infdis/jiab255/6274562[/url]
This saying that those that had Covid, do not need the vaccine (as they are not in the trial testing)...then why does 90% of the population need to be vaccinated?[/QUOTE]
It's absolutely true. We have very little reason to think people who have had COVID and generated a strong immune response need a vaccine any more than the people who got the J&J vaccine do. But we aren't asking the people who got the J&J single shot vaccine to get one.
Seems ridiculous. You're right.
The problem for the people writing the guidelines is that there were a substantial number of people who had a false positive test for the virus. I don't have time to go into calculating false positive and positive predictive values but google it and realize that we tested a lot of asymptomatic people and a lot of people with non-specific symptoms. The vaccine risk is tiny compared to the actual virus, and since we can't test everybody for antibodies, we have to recommend they get vaccinated. There are some benefits to getting a booster shot, although I don't think they're the best reason for the guidance. I think it's to protect the people who only think they had COVID. If you got sick and have antibodies, it's questionable. Since you did get sick, we worry about you being at risk from a re-infection, but your risk is probably the same as the Yankees risk post J&J. It's just that they're healthy athletes vs someone who already proved they have the genetics to get sick form SARS cov 2.
As for 90%, I'd have to look at the math, but I'm sure we picked the number somewhat arbitrarily. Some group of people had to decide what risk of a resistant strain developing was "acceptable" and how many people we can tolerate dying of COVID after we open the borders and ditch the masks.
I'm a doc who doesn't want anyone to die from COVID. I bought my kids Volvos (I drive my wife's hand me down Dodge), I'm a fan of seatbelts, airbags, manual safeties and I have 9 commercial fire extinguishers in various areas of my house. You're lucky I didn't make the decision, Paul, or the recommendation would say we should try to vaccinate 98% of the eligible population ;)
[QUOTE=Paul Kreul;1638951973]Im not trying to be a jerk, I apologize if I came across that way, yes, some of my statements were rude, I acknowledge that, and I am trying to learn as I go along, not understanding the seemingly contradictory narrative. Please help me to understand..if the below is true...
“Immunity to the Coronavirus May Last Years, New Data Hint
Blood samples from recovered patients suggest a powerful, long-lasting immune response, researchers reported.”
[url]https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/11/17/health/coronavirus-immunity.amp.html[/url]
“Persistence of Antibody and Cellular Immune Responses in COVID-19 patients over Nine Months after Infection”
[url]https://academic.oup.com/jid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/infdis/jiab255/6274562[/url]
This saying that those that had Covid, do not need the vaccine (as they are not in the trial testing)...then why does 90% of the population need to be vaccinated?[/QUOTE]
Calling people morons and uneducated was not trying to be a jerk?
At the moment I don't want to invest the time on reading through your links. My criticism to your post was once again regarding exclusion criteria for vaccine trials. I never said 90% of the population had to be vaccinated.... Although I wish 100% were. lol
[QUOTE=JustTheDad;1638954343]It's absolutely true. We have very little reason to think people who have had COVID and generated a strong immune response need a vaccine any more than the people who got the J&J vaccine do. But we aren't asking the people who got the J&J single shot vaccine to get one.
Seems ridiculous. You're right.
The problem for the people writing the guidelines is that there were a substantial number of people who had a false positive test for the virus. I don't have time to go into calculating false positive and positive predictive values but google it and realize that we tested a lot of asymptomatic people and a lot of people with non-specific symptoms. The vaccine risk is tiny compared to the actual virus, and since we can't test everybody for antibodies, we have to recommend they get vaccinated. There are some benefits to getting a booster shot, although I don't think they're the best reason for the guidance. I think it's to protect the people who only think they had COVID. If you got sick and have antibodies, it's questionable. Since you did get sick, we worry about you being at risk from a re-infection, but your risk is probably the same as the Yankees risk post J&J. It's just that they're healthy athletes vs someone who already proved they have the genetics to get sick form SARS cov 2.
As for 90%, I'd have to look at the math, but I'm sure we picked the number somewhat arbitrarily. Some group of people had to decide what risk of a resistant strain developing was "acceptable" and how many people we can tolerate dying of COVID after we open the borders and ditch the masks.
I'm a doc who doesn't want anyone to die from COVID. I bought my kids Volvos (I drive my wife's hand me down Dodge), I'm a fan of seatbelts, airbags, manual safeties and I have 9 commercial fire extinguishers in various areas of my house. You're lucky I didn't make the decision, Paul, or the recommendation would say we should try to vaccinate 98% of the eligible population ;)[/QUOTE]
What model Volvos?
[QUOTE=Paul Kreul;1638940253]That was a lot of words that did not answer the question whatsoever. A+ for deflection though..I’ll ask again..
If those that had Covid, do not need the vaccine (as they are not in the trial testing)...then why does 90% of the population need to be vaccinated?[/QUOTE]
There was no deflection. I was simply pointing out that you have zero clue of what you copy and paste. None. First, I doubt we need 90% to achieve herd immunity and herd immunity is not a light switch. Cases will go down congruently with community immunity (that rhymed :p). There will be flare ups in rural areas that have not been affected yet by the disease, and have not been vaccinated, for years to come. Most metropolitan areas will see declines and low case loads sooner as post infection and vaccine induced immunity reduce the numbers of susceptible hosts.
There is both a medical and financial driven component to the push for everyone get vaccinated no matter what. Post infection immunity would be included in the goal toward herd immunity scientifically. That said, companies who developed these vaccines spent a fuk ton (technical term) of money on development and get paid for deliverable goods. To think they (Pharma) don’t have some influence in the medical and public health sectors is silly. It happens in every branch of government from Dept of Ag, to EPA, FDA etc, personnel in the industry make up special interest groups and revolve into and out of public and private sector roles. In many cases, special interest groups made up of people in profit driven industries affected by legislation, actually write the legislation as well as directives for politicians to push. It’s not like some $hitball lawyer turned politician is going to draft legislation about something technical that they don’t understand.
At the same time, for people who were never confirmed positive, they would likely be better off to get vaccinated as the risk of vaccination appears to be lower than the risk of the disease (even in people w/out comorbidities). But, it is a personal choice to be vaccinated since the efficacy appears high in preventing serious disease/death even in populations with an increased risk.
[QUOTE=mgftp;1638957643]What model Volvos?[/QUOTE]
Focusing on the important stuff lol. XC60's.
Had a 2004 Trailblazer when my daughter got her permit in 2016. I knew I wasn't going to give her my car, so I started watching for a used Honda CRX. Happened to see a 2015 1/2 Platinum package XC60 on ebay at a with a stupidly low price. I called thinking it was a salvage. Wasn't. Mercedes dealer had made some mistakes when they priced it, so I bought it. 18 months later when my son got his permit, I sold the trailblazer and bought basically the same model for him. 2016 dealer demo.
When he started driving to school a year later, I had no car, and my wife decided that was a good excuse to go shopping. Obviously the kids aren't allowed to have nicer cars than she does, so she gave me her Durango and erased all the money I'd saved by price hunting those Volvos.
[QUOTE=Plateauplower;1638959793]There was no deflection. I was simply pointing out that you have zero clue of what you copy and paste. None. First, I doubt we need 90% to achieve herd immunity and herd immunity is not a light switch. Cases will go down congruently with community immunity (that rhymed :p). There will be flare ups in rural areas that have not been affected yet by the disease, and have not been vaccinated, for years to come. Most metropolitan areas will see declines and low case loads sooner as post infection and vaccine induced immunity reduce the numbers of susceptible hosts.
There is both a medical and financial driven component to the push for everyone get vaccinated no matter what. Post infection immunity would be included in the goal toward herd immunity scientifically. That said, companies who developed these vaccines spent a fuk ton (technical term) of money on development and get paid for deliverable goods. To think they (Pharma) don’t have some influence in the medical and public health sectors is silly. It happens in every branch of government from Dept of Ag, to EPA, FDA etc, personnel in the industry make up special interest groups and revolve into and out of public and private sector roles. In many cases, special interest groups made up of people in profit driven industries affected by legislation, actually write the legislation as well as directives for politicians to push. It’s not like some $hitball lawyer turned politician is going to draft legislation about something technical that they don’t understand.
At the same time, for people who were never confirmed positive, they would likely be better off to get vaccinated as the risk of vaccination appears to be lower than the risk of the disease (even in people w/out comorbidities). But, it is a personal choice to be vaccinated since the efficacy appears high in preventing serious disease/death even in populations with an increased risk.[/QUOTE]
Faucci is advocating that 90% be vaccinated..
Dr. Fauci said up to 90% of population needs to get vaccinated for herd immunity against virus”
[url]https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/fauci-up-to-90-population-needs-vaccine-for-herd-immunity-2020-12%3famp[/url]
“Fauci: Herd immunity could require 90 percent of country to be vaccinated”
[url]https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/policy/healthcare/531611-fauci-herd-immunity-could-require-90-percent-of-country-to-be-vaccinated%3famp[/url]
“How Many Americans Need To Get Vaccinated To Reach Herd Immunity? It Could Be 90%, Fauci Says.”
[url]https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2020/12/24/how-many-americans-need-to-get-vaccinated-to-reach-herd-immunity-it-could-be-90-fauci-says/amp/[/url]
I copied & pasted articles & studies stating that those who have had Covid have Antibody and Cellular Immune Response for up to a year, I see no point in trying to push..which will later become a force for 90% to be vaccinated. I do not believe vaccination is needed at all. I completely agree with a lot of what you posted. I appreciate the civil response, sorry for being a dik
[QUOTE=JustTheDad;1638954343]It's absolutely true. We have very little reason to think people who have had COVID and generated a strong immune response need a vaccine any more than the people who got the J&J vaccine do. But we aren't asking the people who got the J&J single shot vaccine to get one.
Seems ridiculous. You're right.
The problem for the people writing the guidelines is that there were a substantial number of people who had a false positive test for the virus. I don't have time to go into calculating false positive and positive predictive values but google it and realize that we tested a lot of asymptomatic people and a lot of people with non-specific symptoms. The vaccine risk is tiny compared to the actual virus, and since we can't test everybody for antibodies, we have to recommend they get vaccinated. There are some benefits to getting a booster shot, although I don't think they're the best reason for the guidance. I think it's to protect the people who only think they had COVID. If you got sick and have antibodies, it's questionable. Since you did get sick, we worry about you being at risk from a re-infection, but your risk is probably the same as the Yankees risk post J&J. It's just that they're healthy athletes vs someone who already proved they have the genetics to get sick form SARS cov 2.
As for 90%, I'd have to look at the math, but I'm sure we picked the number somewhat arbitrarily. Some group of people had to decide what risk of a resistant strain developing was "acceptable" and how many people we can tolerate dying of COVID after we open the borders and ditch the masks.
I'm a doc who doesn't want anyone to die from COVID. I bought my kids Volvos (I drive my wife's hand me down Dodge), I'm a fan of seatbelts, airbags, manual safeties and I have 9 commercial fire extinguishers in various areas of my house. You're lucky I didn't make the decision, Paul, or the recommendation would say we should try to vaccinate 98% of the eligible population ;)[/QUOTE]
When you have the time, could you tell me what you think of this man’s assessment..
[url]https://www.reddit.com/r/QuiteFrankly/comments/mvkpx7/dr_ryan_cole_ceo_and_medical_director_of_cole/[/url]
I appreciate your response
[QUOTE=Paul Kreul;1638965513]When you have the time, could you tell me what you think of this man’s assessment..
[url]https://www.reddit.com/r/QuiteFrankly/comments/mvkpx7/dr_ryan_cole_ceo_and_medical_director_of_cole/[/url]
I appreciate your response[/QUOTE]
"This video has been removed for violating YouTube's Terms of Service."
The one comment is the statement you've posted a thousand times. You must be SDFella07.
So, can't see the video, but [url]https://www.factcheck.org/person/ryan-cole/[/url]
"A viral video features a doctor making dubious claims about COVID-19 vaccines and treatments at a forum hosted by Idaho’s lieutenant governor. Dr. Ryan Cole claims mRNA vaccines cause cancer and autoimmune diseases, but the lead author of the paper on which Cole based that claim told us there is no evidence mRNA vaccines cause those ailments."
I know you didn't ask me and I'm not disputing anything in the video I can't see, just passing along a couple notes.
[QUOTE=LWW;1638947883]How would anyone KNOW they would get an allergic reaction unless they’ve been fully vaccinated, I know they could get only one shot and find that out, but the whole concept is strange.
Can’t someone just say they are terrified of getting a vaccine like a phobia?
This whole thing sucks big time, I call for people to boycott any company that forces this chit......
I’m creating dozens of fake FB accounts to spread this boycott!!!![/QUOTE]
Having a previous reaction to components in the vaccine. A phobia of vaccines could count as a medical condition if you had a clinical diagnosis. Likely result in an ADA accommodation where the employer would determine if the accommodation could be reasonably made. This entire thing is a nightmare for HR folks, believe me I work with them a lot.
[QUOTE=Paul Kreul;1638963323]Faucci is advocating that 90% be vaccinated..
Dr. Fauci said up to 90% of population needs to get vaccinated for herd immunity against virus”
[url]https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/fauci-up-to-90-population-needs-vaccine-for-herd-immunity-2020-12%3famp[/url]
“Fauci: Herd immunity could require 90 percent of country to be vaccinated”
[url]https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/policy/healthcare/531611-fauci-herd-immunity-could-require-90-percent-of-country-to-be-vaccinated%3famp[/url]
“How Many Americans Need To Get Vaccinated To Reach Herd Immunity? It Could Be 90%, Fauci Says.”
[url]https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2020/12/24/how-many-americans-need-to-get-vaccinated-to-reach-herd-immunity-it-could-be-90-fauci-says/amp/[/url]
I copied & pasted articles & studies stating that those who have had Covid have Antibody and Cellular Immune Response for up to a year, I see no point in trying to push..which will later become a force for 90% to be vaccinated. I do not believe vaccination is needed at all. I completely agree with a lot of what you posted. I appreciate the civil response, sorry for being a dik[/QUOTE]
Fauci is obviously biased. Fauci is also in a very difficult position to navigate politically and professionally. Would not want his job. In terms of science, they can’t make definitive claims on things that have not been previously studied. They have studied vaccines more than natural immunity protection because A - less people will die with effective vaccines and B - there is money to be made, and therefore investment into research for vaccines. Nobody is paying for a case of covid and post infection immunity research. That’s up to people to do out of their own interest and funding sources that likely don’t have as deep of pockets.
[QUOTE=sy2502;1638947873]As a kid I had
pertussis
measles
chickenpox
mumps
Those are all viruses and therefore they do what viruses do, they mutate. And since when I was a kid nobody got vaccinated for those diseases, the viruses circulated. A lot. And they tell us infection = mutation. Oddly though, I never had a recurrence of any of those diseases. Not one. How is it possible if viruses mutate? Curious minds want to know. Also they don't seem to make such a big deal about mutations for other vaccines, like polio, diphtheria or tetanus. Why not? Diphtheria is a hell of a lot worse than covid, shouldn't we worry about mutations? Or is it that only COVID mutates and invalidates the vaccine? Wow that's one special virus...[/QUOTE]
They do mutate. All the time. It’s just that most mutations have very little to no effect on the disease and not enough to allow for reinfection. The reason it happens with certain viruses more often, such as influenza, is because there are so many and they can swap genes occasionally (genetic recombination) and you end up with bird/swine viruses able to infect people who don’t have any immunity to this “novel” virus. Influenza viruses can be fukin scary. Some melting people with hemorrhagic effects like Ebola, Marburg etc.
[QUOTE=Paul Kreul;1638965513]When you have the time, could you tell me what you think of this man’s assessment..
[url]https://www.reddit.com/r/QuiteFrankly/comments/mvkpx7/dr_ryan_cole_ceo_and_medical_director_of_cole/[/url]
I appreciate your response[/QUOTE]
Don't know what it was, but the link said it violated some YouTube policy and was taken down.
[QUOTE=Plateauplower;1638933523][B]I disagree[/B]. If someone is not medically able to be vaccinated due to allergic reaction etc., or for qualified religious exemption, both of those would fall under protected classes.
[U]Otherwise, yep employers can set the rules, employees can follow or leave. I do not agree with it in this case, but that's the way it is.[/U][/QUOTE]
So you agree. :D
[QUOTE=Jtbny;1638971463]So you agree. :D[/QUOTE]
Partially ;) under some limited circumstances. But I don’t like it.
A conference I was in with some very expensive attorneys didn’t think it would be a good idea to mandate. Vaccine mandates for workers i.e. medical, LT care etc, are all traditionally approved vaccines rather than emergency use authorization vaccines. That is untested in the courts, but I’m sure it will be before too long.
[QUOTE=Gabbar99;1638966243]"This video has been removed for violating YouTube's Terms of Service."
The one comment is the statement you've posted a thousand times. You must be SDFella07.
So, can't see the video, but [url]https://www.factcheck.org/person/ryan-cole/[/url]
"A viral video features a doctor making dubious claims about COVID-19 vaccines and treatments at a forum hosted by Idaho’s lieutenant governor. Dr. Ryan Cole claims mRNA vaccines cause cancer and autoimmune diseases, but the lead author of the paper on which Cole based that claim told us there is no evidence mRNA vaccines cause those ailments."
I know you didn't ask me and I'm not disputing anything in the video I can't see, just passing along a couple notes.[/QUOTE]
[url]https://vimeo.com/535131211[/url]
Try this one
I'm sorry Paul. I only watched a few minutes before I got bored and started skipping ahead. Found a fact check. There are probably a few. Saw that the author of a paper he tried to spin pointed out he didn't understand the data or is intentionally lying or distorting regarding vaccines and cancer.
It's like that paper on the chickens that you linked to because it worried you. I could use the paper to try and convince you the covid vaccines are increasing our risks of a zombie apocalypse, but it would be a lie. The paper isn't related to the right type of vaccine or virus and the issue isn't related zombies. There are real risks due to that chicken vaccine, which is why it's banned here, but it's not relevant to this discussion and I'd just be using it to scare you. Don't know that doc or what his agenda is, but let me know if he runs for office somewhere on a platform related to zombies, or even to public health issues.
[QUOTE=JustTheDad;1638979033]I'm sorry Paul. I only watched a few minutes before I got bored and started skipping ahead. Found a fact check. There are probably a few. Saw that the author of a paper he tried to spin pointed out he didn't understand the data or is intentionally lying or distorting regarding vaccines and cancer.
It's like that paper on the chickens that you linked to because it worried you. I could use the paper to try and convince you the covid vaccines are increasing our risks of a zombie apocalypse, but it would be a lie. The paper isn't related to the right type of vaccine or virus and the issue isn't related zombies. There are real risks due to that chicken vaccine, which is why it's banned here, but it's not relevant to this discussion and I'd just be using it to scare you. Don't know that doc or what his agenda is, but let me know if he runs for office somewhere on a platform related to zombies, or even to public health issues.[/QUOTE]
As far as I can tell he is a pretty reputable doctor in Idaho with his own clinic, but thank you for checking it out. I personally don’t trust the vaccine, not an anti-vaxxer as I just had the shingles vaccine not to long ago, but the push for this thing is astounding. I’ve also seen some talk regarding Ivermectin being just as effective & safer (fully FDA approved)
[url]https://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/968688?section=us&keywords=ivermectin-drug-virus&year=2020&month=05&date=22&id=968688&oref=duckduckgo.com[/url]
This is a smart group in here, not being sarcastic in the slightest, I appreciate the patience & responses that have addressed my posts.
Can anyone tell me if I am understanding this correctly?
You cannot donate PLASMA after the Covid vaccine because it wipes out your natural antibodies
[url]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GbRSgsYUQQk&feature=emb_title[/url]
So anyone can donate blood still....but, if you have received the vaccine, your blood will NOT be used to treat COVID patients who need antibodies to prevent viral spread because the vaccinated antibodies have been wiped out...wtf..?
[QUOTE=Paul Kreul;1638979423]I’ve also seen some talk regarding Ivermectin being just as effective & safer (fully FDA approved)
[/QUOTE]
Would have been nice if safe doses had proven effective, but they haven't in any well controlled studies I've seen. It does have effects in vitro, but at doses that would kill you.
I think I read there was a study that may have shown it prevented rats from loosing their sense of smell. Maybe it restored it. That seems less likely and I'm honestly not even sure if that was related to SARS cov2. Could have been some other infection, but doesn't that seem like it would have been a fun study to design as a grad student. I mean what do you think they did? Time the rats they infected at finding stinky cheese at the end of a maze? Think of all the betting they probably did while running the trials.
Anyway. Don't spend too much time worrying what they'll treat you with if you get it, and if you're too worried about the vaccine to get it, just be careful until you're not worried about the vaccine or until really few people have it.
[QUOTE=Paul Kreul;1638979423] I’ve also seen some talk regarding Ivermectin being just as effective & safer (fully FDA approved)
[/QUOTE]
Anecdotally, Ivermectin looked promising, but as more studies are coming in, it seems that it doesn't really help. Not definitive yet, may still have some use, but definitely not the miracle drug it was pitched as in a viral video a year ago.
[QUOTE=Plateauplower;1638971793]Partially ;) under some limited circumstances. But I don’t like it.
A conference I was in with some very expensive attorneys didn’t think it would be a good idea to mandate. Vaccine mandates for workers i.e. medical, LT care etc, are all traditionally approved vaccines rather than emergency use authorization vaccines. That is untested in the courts, but I’m sure it will be before too long.[/QUOTE]
I don't like gov't interference into business either ;)
Hell, I could see the argument in court being made that certain business have a bona fide occupational qualifications standard they must have to survive and that w/o this its detrimental to their survival. We see BFOQ right meow that goes against laws on discrimination - i.e age restrictions on some occupations.
[QUOTE=Jtbny;1638995333]I don't like gov't interference into business either ;)
Hell, I could see the argument in court being made that certain business have a bona fide occupational qualifications standard they must have to survive and that w/o this its detrimental to their survival. We see BFOQ right meow that goes against laws on discrimination - i.e age restrictions on some occupations.[/QUOTE]
The US Military, as an example.
[QUOTE=Jtbny;1638995333]I don't like gov't interference into business either ;)
Hell, I could see the argument in court being made that certain business have a bona fide occupational qualifications standard they must have to survive and that w/o this its detrimental to their survival. We see BFOQ right meow that goes against laws on discrimination - i.e age restrictions on some occupations.[/QUOTE]
I suppose, but typically BFOQs are related to physical demands, but that is often out of the need for occupational safety, which I suppose this could fall under. I think it will be tricky, and hopefully this thing just kind of goes away. First day that my gym revised guidelines for vaccinated people not having to wear face coverings. Best session I've had in over a year. I got through it wearing one, but everything felt better w/out. Especially bench without it coming up over my eyes like a lone ranger mask.
Everyone keep Pockets in your thoughts, he’s getting the 1st jab tomorrow. He is a tad nervous, he messaged me saying he can’t stop visiting the toilet.
I told him, no worries man it happened to me the day before my wedding. Once it’s over you’ll be great!
Well kids I get my second dose tomorrow and will enjoy the freedoms of being fully vaccinated soon enough. I hear the CDC will next be lifting mask recommendations at group orgies.
[QUOTE=JustTheDad;1638961043]Focusing on the important stuff lol. XC60's.
Had a 2004 Trailblazer when my daughter got her permit in 2016. I knew I wasn't going to give her my car, so I started watching for a used Honda CRX. Happened to see a 2015 1/2 Platinum package XC60 on ebay at a with a stupidly low price. I called thinking it was a salvage. Wasn't. Mercedes dealer had made some mistakes when they priced it, so I bought it. 18 months later when my son got his permit, I sold the trailblazer and bought basically the same model for him. 2016 dealer demo.
When he started driving to school a year later, I had no car, and my wife decided that was a good excuse to go shopping. Obviously the kids aren't allowed to have nicer cars than she does, so she gave me her Durango and erased all the money I'd saved by price hunting those Volvos.[/QUOTE]
It is important. My interest in Volvos has grown and I have a number of friends now that have gotten into XC40s and XC60s in recent years. As a brand I think they have a lot to offer but overlooked by many. I am intrigued by the new all electric XC40 and where we are headed with electric cars in general.
[QUOTE=Paul Kreul;1638984833]This is a smart group in here, not being sarcastic in the slightest, I appreciate the patience & responses that have addressed my posts.
Can anyone tell me if I am understanding this correctly?
You cannot donate PLASMA after the Covid vaccine because it wipes out your natural antibodies
[url]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GbRSgsYUQQk&feature=emb_title[/url]
So anyone can donate blood still....but, if you have received the vaccine, your blood will NOT be used to treat COVID patients who need antibodies to prevent viral spread because the vaccinated antibodies have been wiped out...wtf..?[/QUOTE]
I don't have the ability to watch that particular video now but I am curious if you would consider deleting all your browser and search history, cookies, etc? It seems to me you post a lot of questionable "sources" in general and just echo what those sources are saying without really examining the validity. The thing about the internet and the algorithms that exist within it is you can be trapped in an echo chamber of misinformation of sorts without negative intentions. Might start with innocently clicking on a YouTube video but then another is recommended so you click that and before you know it you are surrounded by a bunch of things from one point of view, right or wrong and it can really warp one's view of reality. Just a consideration.
I think it's more healthy than unhealthy to question things rather than go along with a government narrative. I just see too many people fearful over things they heard and regurgitating those ideas regardless of validity or if they even really make much sense at very basic levels. I congratulate you for seeming to have come around to discussion of these things you are seeing rather then "everyone is an uneducated moron because I saw xyz.youtube".
[QUOTE=mgftp;1639006443]Well kids I get my second dose tomorrow and will enjoy the freedoms of being fully vaccinated soon enough.
.[/QUOTE]
Not sure about the freedom thing? It only means that if corporate wants you to get on plane even to visit your new boss Chyna, you must comply, that ain’t freedom!!!!
[QUOTE=mgftp;1639006443]Well kids I get my second dose tomorrow and will enjoy the freedoms of being fully vaccinated soon enough. I hear the CDC will next be lifting mask recommendations at group orgies.
It is important. My interest in Volvos has grown and I have a number of friends now that have gotten into XC40s and XC60s in recent years. As a brand I think they have a lot to offer but overlooked by many. I am intrigued by the new all electric XC40 and where we are headed with electric cars in general.
I don't have the ability to watch that particular video now but I am curious if you would consider deleting all your browser and search history, cookies, etc? It seems to me you post a lot of questionable "sources" in general and just echo what those sources are saying without really examining the validity. The thing about the internet and the algorithms that exist within it is you can be trapped in an echo chamber of misinformation of sorts without negative intentions. Might start with innocently clicking on a YouTube video but then another is recommended so you click that and before you know it you are surrounded by a bunch of things from one point of view, right or wrong and it can really warp one's view of reality. Just a consideration.
I think it's more healthy than unhealthy to question things rather than go along with a government narrative. I just see too many people fearful over things they heard and regurgitating those ideas regardless of validity or if they even really make much sense at very basic levels. I congratulate you for seeming to have come around to discussion of these things you are seeing rather then "everyone is an uneducated moron because I saw xyz.youtube".[/QUOTE]
yeah and despite the temptation, never search online for why there are no baby pigeons. That there's a deep dark rabbit hole, or more accurately, pigeon hole that you dont wanna find yurself trapped in.
[QUOTE=Paul Kreul;1638984833]
So anyone can donate blood still....but, if you have received the vaccine, your blood will NOT be used to treat COVID patients who need antibodies to prevent viral spread because the vaccinated antibodies have been wiped out...wtf..?[/QUOTE]
One news persons makes a mistake and you again think the vaccine can lower your antibodies or is dangerous. You really are worrying too much about this. The bottom line is it's completely wrong to say ab levels decrease.
[url]https://www.raps.org/news-and-articles/news-articles/2021/1/fda-explains-convalescent-plasma-donor-eligibility[/url]
Your ab levels to the spike protein go up after the vaccine. Probably not enough to warrant collecting your plasma if you haven't had the virus, but it's likely someone is looking into that. Also, post the actual virus there's mix of antibodies in your plasma. The spike protein is the one that the vaccines induce production of, but there are also antibodies to the nucleocapsid. I don't know if there are envelope or other membrane antibodies. I considered listing all the variables I thought of in less than a minute, the ones I'd want to measure if designing a trial on post vaccine/post breakthrough SARS plasma or on post SARS/post vaccine plasma. There were a lot of them including ab ratios and the effect on efficacy in sick patients. I won't list them, but until they have more data, the Red Cross won't collect the plasma. It might be more effective than plasma from post infection patients, but once you have that original product you know may help a very ill patient, studying the possibly better product is difficult. It requires not giving some of those sick patients the original version. Whoever is trying to figure that out will have an enrollment nightmare.