Will you get vaccinated?

[QUOTE=Cass40;1647545983]True but maybe they just wanted a date night out from a sick child to nurture their relationship? Also, they didn't demand others wearing a mask, they were just doing what they thought was best for their family.

But what do I know, I have no kids.

Edit: was gonna post mah freedom should go both ways but then again bar owner apparently also has freedom. It's a bit like back in the day the football shirts were not allowed in bars because different team fans would get into a fight. Seems like a similar situation here. The bar owner doesn't want fighting in his bar over masks.[/QUOTE]

I agree the owner has the right provided he's not breaking any laws. I'm pro govt not fuking with business. They could just as easily found another establishment that was cool with masks.

I can only use my own bias here but if I had an immune compromised kid there's no way I'm taking that child out to a bar, let alone in Texas of all states, if I was concerned about Covid19. At the very least I'd get a sitter. I'd feel the same about the flu and having a very vulnerable kid. Why risk it?

Doing what's best would be to limit exposure. This is the opposite of that.

[QUOTE=Cass40;1647545983]True but maybe they just wanted a date night out from a sick child to nurture their relationship? Also, they didn't demand others wearing a mask, they were just doing what they thought was best for their family.

But what do I know,[b] I have no kids.[/b]

Edit: was gonna post mah freedom should go both ways but then again bar owner apparently also has freedom. It's a bit like back in the day the football shirts were not allowed in bars because different team fans would get into a fight. Seems like a similar situation here. The bar owner doesn't want fighting in his bar over masks.[/QUOTE]

You are even more attractive now.

[QUOTE=JustTheDad;1647519413]I'll encourage my parents to avoid prison then :) As far as the 70% being vaccinated, if 80 or 90% of the prison population is vaccinated, that would make perfect sense.

Do you have reference or link? I was the medical director for a state correctional system once and would be interested in reading the story. It's a somewhat contained system that could probably provide some good efficacy data.[/QUOTE]

It was in Texas, should be able to figure it out with a google search..or well maybe a dark web search. It’s recent / ongoing. But ya, it would make perfect sense that vaccinated people have about the same rate as unvaccinated people of being infected, if the vaccine doesn’t work. The people who did best, reportedly, were those who were previously infected, and vaccinated. It must be that the vaccination works best if you get the disease. Seems like a really novel method to push.

[QUOTE=mgftp;1647565833]You are even more attractive now.[/QUOTE]

Ummm...I have no kids cos I'm lazy and selfish and can barely tie my shoes. :o

[QUOTE=Jtbny;1647561093]I agree the owner has the right provided he's not breaking any laws. I'm pro govt not fuking with business. They could just as easily found another establishment that was cool with masks.

I can only use my own bias here but if I had an immune compromised kid there's no way I'm taking that child out to a bar, let alone in Texas of all states, if I was concerned about Covid19. At the very least I'd get a sitter. I'd feel the same about the flu and having a very vulnerable kid. Why risk it?

Doing what's best would be to limit exposure. This is the opposite of that.[/QUOTE]

Why would you think they'd take their baby to a bar?
They were there with their friends.

[img]https://img.ifunny.co/images/a9d9c7f7120b513336aca34ff12d3ba90ed0301871a4a9abcf7c42242a1e58ba_1.jpg[/img]

What ya'll think about the FDA booster decision? Have been getting takes from my doc friends who mostly say they made the right call. Many also commented along the lines that nothing is wrong with boosters, it's extra safety with very little extra harm profile. But that that extra safety just hasn't been shown to be needed in the vaccinated young as healthy as the vaccines remain very effective. Of course this could be fine personal choice but would get dicey if mandated by employers and govt.

[QUOTE=Cass40;1647587303]Ummm...[b]I have no kids cos[/b] I'm lazy and [b]selfish[/b] and can barely tie my shoes. :o[/QUOTE]

Attractive quality. I think it's partial bias because I am as well, but I think it also shows strength. I think a lot more people in this world actually are similar but fall to pressure to breed from friends, society, family, etc.

[QUOTE=mgftp;1647598693]... I think a lot more people in this world actually are similar but fall to pressure to breed from friends, society, family, etc.[/QUOTE]

Accidents happen, too, especially when you're drunk. :)

[QUOTE=mgftp;1647598693]What ya'll think about the FDA booster decision? Have been getting takes from my doc friends who mostly say they made the right call. Many also commented along the lines that nothing is wrong with boosters, it's extra safety with very little extra harm profile. But that that extra safety just hasn't been shown to be needed in the vaccinated young as healthy as the vaccines remain very effective. Of course this could be fine personal choice but would get dicey if mandated by employers and govt.



Attractive quality. I think it's partial bias because I am as well, but I think it also shows strength. I think a lot more people in this world actually are similar but fall to pressure to breed from friends, society, family, etc.[/QUOTE]

Well if we could get a complete definition of young and healthy then we have step 1 of a multi step evaluation process. And because we are over 35, we may not be considered young and healthy any longer, lol.

Israel showed a 20-30 percent drop in protection 6-8 months
on with Pfizer, so maybe it helps if you are high risk.

[QUOTE=JustTheDad;1647468443]LMAO. I actually was considering it, briefly, but after I checked the links I decided nobody who reads would need me to.
Paul's does have me beat on state travel though. I've only been to 7 states so far this year. Might add a couple more this weekend if I drive up to visit my parents.
Alternatively, they got booster shots 2 days ago so if they develop super powers, maybe they'll just put on capes and fly down to visit me instead.[/QUOTE]
Maybe if you visit them you could casually slip into polite conversation over the Sunday dinner table, some testicle size questions, I'm sure Paul will be dying to know

[QUOTE=Plateauplower;1647581373]It was in Texas, should be able to figure it out with a google search..or well maybe a dark web search. It’s recent / ongoing. But ya, it would make perfect sense that vaccinated people have about the same rate as unvaccinated people of being infected, if the vaccine doesn’t work. The people who did best, reportedly, were those who were previously infected, and vaccinated. It must be that the vaccination works best if you get the disease. Seems like a really novel method to push.[/QUOTE]

70% of the vaccinated prisoners tested positive, 93% of the unvaccinated prisoners tested positive, 57% of the prisoners who had previously had COVID also tested positive, 5% of the ones who had previously had COVID and got the vaccine tested positive.
Viral clearance was 23% faster in the vaccinated group than the unvaccinated group. 1.6% of the vaccinated prisoners required treatment at the hospital, 2.4% of the unvaccinated prisoners required treatment at the hospital that included intubation. 2.4% of the unvaccinated prisoners died.

It's easy to play with numbers or draw false conclusions if you don't read the details. What I typed above means jack diddly. 185 vaccinated, 42 unvaccinated, 3 hospitalized from the vaccinated group but never needed ventilatory support, 1 hospitalized from the unvaccinated group. The 1 from the unvaccinated group died. These two "cohorts" weren't matched for demographics and comorbidities, so all it means that in a closed system you can culture a highly transmissible virus from people vaccinated against a different strain of that virus. It also seems to indicated the vaccine saved some lives and decreased transmission, but again, it's a tiny study and poorly matched or controlled. Definitely doesn't provide any evidence that the vaccines didn't work. They apparently decreased mortality by 100% if we want to play numbers games and pretend this outbreak taught us something.

[QUOTE=OldFartTom;1647604713]Maybe if you visit them you could casually slip into polite conversation over the Sunday dinner table, some testicle size questions, I'm sure Paul will be dying to know[/QUOTE]
??? I saw the cartoons and memes but must be unaware of this latest side effect. Are the vaccines now the equivalent to miracle grow for your nads?

I forgot to mention, the outbreak write up is on the CDC's website. Not hard to find.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, accompanied by the state's controversial new surgeon general, signed a new rule on Wednesday that allows students directly exposed to COVID-19 to keep going to school, so long as they are asymptomatic.

The emergency rule says it is meant to "minimize the detriment to students and school personnel from the added burden of recurrent removal of students, and to benefit the overall welfare of students in Florida," as well as protect parents' rights and preserve Floridians' "constitutional freedoms."

Under the new rule, students who test positive for COVID-19 or who have symptoms are not allowed to attend school until they either get a negative test and no longer have symptoms, or 10 days have passed since they first got symptoms or tested positive, and they have not had a fever in 24 hours. If a student gets a doctor's note saying they can go back to school, they can avoid those restrictions.


For students who were in "direct contact" with someone who tests positive for COVID-19 — meaning they spent a total of at least 15 minutes within six feet — it is up to the parents whether they continue going to school, the rule says.

If the student is asymptomatic, they can either continue going without any restrictions, or they can go under quarantine for no more than seven days from the date of the last direct contact with the individual who is COVID-positive.

The rule is at odds with guidelines set forth by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.



[url]https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-19-florida-students-quarantine-school-mask-rules/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7e&linkId=132945452[/url]

[QUOTE=JustTheDad;1647608033]70% of the vaccinated prisoners tested positive, 93% of the unvaccinated prisoners tested positive, 57% of the prisoners who had previously had COVID also tested positive, 5% of the ones who had previously had COVID and got the vaccine tested positive.
Viral clearance was 23% faster in the vaccinated group than the unvaccinated group. 1.6% of the vaccinated prisoners required treatment at the hospital, 2.4% of the unvaccinated prisoners required treatment at the hospital that included intubation. 2.4% of the unvaccinated prisoners died.

It's easy to play with numbers or draw false conclusions if you don't read the details. What I typed above means jack diddly. 185 vaccinated, 42 unvaccinated, 3 hospitalized from the vaccinated group but never needed ventilatory support, 1 hospitalized from the unvaccinated group. The 1 from the unvaccinated group died. These two "cohorts" weren't matched for demographics and comorbidities, so all it means that in a closed system you can culture a highly transmissible virus from people vaccinated against a different strain of that virus. It also seems to indicated the vaccine saved some lives and decreased transmission, but again, it's a tiny study and poorly matched or controlled. Definitely doesn't provide any evidence that the vaccines didn't work. They apparently decreased mortality by 100% if we want to play numbers games and pretend this outbreak taught us something.


??? I saw the cartoons and memes but must be unaware of this latest side effect. Are the vaccines now the equivalent to miracle grow for your nads?

I forgot to mention, the outbreak write up is on the CDC's website. Not hard to find.[/QUOTE]

Yes it looks to have been marginally effective based on your more detailed summary. Or it could be hugely effective with a 100% efficacy in preventing death :p. Those types of "real world" studies interest me, even though it is less scientific and controlled. I am surprised that over half of the recovered unvaccinated people tested positive, any idea how many were in that group? That is a little more concerning to me, I'll have to look it up on the CDC site, as I just heard about it on WBBM 780 news radio.

Yes some "nutty" celebrity claimed the vax makes your balls huge. Actually considering it for that reason alone if true :p

[QUOTE=mtpockets;1647610653]Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, accompanied by the state's controversial new surgeon general, signed a new rule on Wednesday that allows students directly exposed to COVID-19 to keep going to school, so long as they are asymptomatic.

The emergency rule says it is meant to "minimize the detriment to students and school personnel from the added burden of recurrent removal of students, and to benefit the overall welfare of students in Florida," as well as protect parents' rights and preserve Floridians' "constitutional freedoms."

Under the new rule, students who test positive for COVID-19 or who have symptoms are not allowed to attend school until they either get a negative test and no longer have symptoms, or 10 days have passed since they first got symptoms or tested positive, and they have not had a fever in 24 hours. If a student gets a doctor's note saying they can go back to school, they can avoid those restrictions.


For students who were in "direct contact" with someone who tests positive for COVID-19 — meaning they spent a total of at least 15 minutes within six feet — it is up to the parents whether they continue going to school, the rule says.

If the student is asymptomatic, they can either continue going without any restrictions, or they can go under quarantine for no more than seven days from the date of the last direct contact with the individual who is COVID-positive.

The rule is at odds with guidelines set forth by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.



[url]https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-19-florida-students-quarantine-school-mask-rules/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7e&linkId=132945452[/url][/QUOTE]

I just heard that here they can return to school post close contact, but will be tested every other day for a week. Keep in mind, CDC guidance for vaccinated people is they do not need to quarantine or test at all post close contact exposure, unless that has changed.

[QUOTE=JustTheDad;1647608033]70% of the vaccinated prisoners tested positive, 93% of the unvaccinated prisoners tested positive, 57% of the prisoners who had previously had COVID also tested positive, 5% of the ones who had previously had COVID and got the vaccine tested positive.
Viral clearance was 23% faster in the vaccinated group than the unvaccinated group. 1.6% of the vaccinated prisoners required treatment at the hospital, 2.4% of the unvaccinated prisoners required treatment at the hospital that included intubation. 2.4% of the unvaccinated prisoners died.

It's easy to play with numbers or draw false conclusions if you don't read the details. What I typed above means jack diddly. 185 vaccinated, 42 unvaccinated, 3 hospitalized from the vaccinated group but never needed ventilatory support, 1 hospitalized from the unvaccinated group. The 1 from the unvaccinated group died. These two "cohorts" weren't matched for demographics and comorbidities, so all it means that in a closed system you can culture a highly transmissible virus from people vaccinated against a different strain of that virus. It also seems to indicated the vaccine saved some lives and decreased transmission, but again, it's a tiny study and poorly matched or controlled. Definitely doesn't provide any evidence that the vaccines didn't work. They apparently decreased mortality by 100% if we want to play numbers games and pretend this outbreak taught us something.

[/QUOTE]

[I]You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to JustTheDad again.[/I]

We are so blessed to have you here. If only you could interpret everything in my life.

Were they testing every prisoner at certain set intervals in this or did symptoms play a role?

[QUOTE=Plateauplower;1647613833]I am surprised that over half of the recovered unvaccinated people tested positive, any idea how many were in that group? That is a little more concerning to me, I'll have to look it up on the CDC site, as I just heard about it on WBBM 780 news radio. [/QUOTE]

4 of 7 tested positive (57%) and it shouldn't surprise you. We need to make an effort to stop thinking of a vaccine as a force field that shields us from infection. Vaccines can't really prevent "infection". If we have 50 or 100 trillion cells in our bodies and you toss enough viral particles into a person's lungs, some cells are going to get infected and produce more virus. That's an infection. It's just sub-clinical. People will get infected even if they have high levels of circulating antibodies to the virus because some virus will still get in and some cells will make more virus before our immune system destroys them. It's always going to be a race between your immune system and the virus.

A vaccine just gives us a head start on mounting an effective immune response, and the vaccines we have actually do it impressively well.


[url]https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7038e3.htm[/url]

[QUOTE=JustTheDad;1647617703]4 of 7 tested positive (57%) and it shouldn't surprise you. We need to make an effort to stop thinking of a vaccine as a force field that shields us from infection. Vaccines can't really prevent "infection". If we have 50 or 100 trillion cells in our bodies and you toss enough viral particles into a person's lungs, some cells are going to get infected and produce more virus. That's an infection. It's just sub-clinical. People will get infected even if they have high levels of circulating antibodies to the virus because some virus will still get in and some cells will make more virus before our immune system destroys them. It's always going to be a race between your immune system and the virus.

A vaccine just gives us a head start on mounting an effective immune response, and the vaccines we have actually do it impressively well.


[url]https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7038e3.htm[/url][/QUOTE]

Yes that's true on the infected versus sick. You could be re-exposed and "infected" on the cellular level, but the immune response would, ideally, prevent the infection from progressing to clinical disease. I wonder about how sensitive the tests are (they seem pretty sensitive). I had learned that in many cases the period when someone is "contagious" is often pretty short often immediately before symptoms appear, and viral shedding is reduced as the immune system begins to "get a handle" on the infection (for lack of a better term). However, that seems counterintuitive in that even a single infected cell could release millions of viral progeny. That number is small relative to an actual disease, but I wonder how much viral material it takes to achieve a positive result. Theoretically a person could have viral particles trapped in their noses, not be infected at all, and test positive if they grabbed those particles with a swab.

Thanks for link going to read now, had not had the chance yet.

Edit to add after reading it, seemed to have a pretty high infection rate in people recently vaccinated as well...

[QUOTE=mgftp;1647598693]



Attractive quality. I think it's partial bias because I am as well, but I think it also shows strength. I think a lot more people in this world actually are similar but fall to pressure to breed from friends, society, family, etc.[/QUOTE]

Yes maybe to others but not me, I've never felt any pressure and those who are shocked about it are usually the kinds of folk I wouldn't care to have anything to do with anyways if I didn't have to, I mean if they're coworkers or whatnot.
[QUOTE=supramax;1647600023]Accidents happen, too, especially when you're drunk. :)[/QUOTE]

Not to this girl

<-----

[QUOTE=mgftp;1647617203][I]]Were they testing every prisoner at certain set intervals in this or did symptoms play a role?[/QUOTE]

I appreciate the thought and sorry, missed your question earlier. Was multi tasking (poorly). It looks like they tested everybody on a schedule and symptomatic inmates or those with known exposures as needed

From that CDC link above: During July 12–August 14, 2021, BOP staff members offered same-day SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen testing to all 233 persons in units A and B reporting symptoms or known exposures; the entire quarantined cohort received testing from BOP during July 12–13 and again on July 14, July 19, July 22, August 2, and August 10 with a combination of rapid antigen and RT-PCR tests.** SARS-CoV-2 testing among staff members was voluntary and was performed off-site by staff members’ health care providers. A subset of 70 incarcerated persons in units A and B consented to a secondary investigation for which they reported symptom data through a questionnaire and provided nasal midturbinate swabs daily for up to 20 days after symptom onset. Specimens were tested by RT-PCR.†† Viral culture was attempted for RT-PCR–positive specimens from a nonrandom subset of participants.§§ Genomic sequencing was attempted for one RT-PCR–positive specimen from each participant, when possible.

I'm not sure how they decided which inmates were known exposures. Maybe cell mates with + tests? Maybe within a cell or two? No clue. It's an interesting write up but I don't know how to apply it to anything except prisons/jails/college dorms and Greek houses. Even then, all it tells us is that if that's where you live, you're probably gonna get it. Shocker, right? Of course, we're all gonna get exposed at some point.

Also, Plateauplower, I read and then wrote something wrong before. Of the 4 inmates who got hospitalized, 3 were actually from the 39 unvaccinated inmates, and only 1 was from the 129 vaccinated inmates that tested positive. So it was 7.6% of the unvaccinated infected inmates that had to be hospitalized, and .77% of the vaccinated and infected inmates. Ultimately, a 23% reduced risk of catching it enough that we can find it, a 90% reduced risk of being hospitalized, and that ridiculous 100% reduction in the mortality. Obviously inmates may not have had the healthiest lifestyles, so I won't pretend we can extrapolate that to the general population, but it's still better than what I thought it showed. Probably why the CDC put it on their website. And then look how it got famous ... 70% of the infected inmates had been vaccinated :)

Co-worker with fully vaxxed parents are in the ICU right now. Yep, the vax works great.

[QUOTE=JustTheDad;1647643783]I appreciate the thought and sorry, missed your question earlier. Was multi tasking (poorly). It looks like they tested everybody on a schedule and symptomatic inmates or those with known exposures as needed

From that CDC link above: During July 12–August 14, 2021, BOP staff members offered same-day SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen testing to all 233 persons in units A and B reporting symptoms or known exposures; the entire quarantined cohort received testing from BOP during July 12–13 and again on July 14, July 19, July 22, August 2, and August 10 with a combination of rapid antigen and RT-PCR tests.** SARS-CoV-2 testing among staff members was voluntary and was performed off-site by staff members’ health care providers. A subset of 70 incarcerated persons in units A and B consented to a secondary investigation for which they reported symptom data through a questionnaire and provided nasal midturbinate swabs daily for up to 20 days after symptom onset. Specimens were tested by RT-PCR.†† Viral culture was attempted for RT-PCR–positive specimens from a nonrandom subset of participants.§§ Genomic sequencing was attempted for one RT-PCR–positive specimen from each participant, when possible.

I'm not sure how they decided which inmates were known exposures. Maybe cell mates with + tests? Maybe within a cell or two? No clue. It's an interesting write up but I don't know how to apply it to anything except prisons/jails/college dorms and Greek houses. Even then, all it tells us is that if that's where you live, you're probably gonna get it. Shocker, right? Of course, we're all gonna get exposed at some point.

Also, Plateauplower, I read and then wrote something wrong before. Of the 4 inmates who got hospitalized, 3 were actually from the 39 unvaccinated inmates, and only 1 was from the 129 vaccinated inmates that tested positive. So it was 7.6% of the unvaccinated infected inmates that had to be hospitalized, and .77% of the vaccinated and infected inmates. Ultimately, a 23% reduced risk of catching it enough that we can find it, a 90% reduced risk of being hospitalized, and that ridiculous 100% reduction in the mortality. Obviously inmates may not have had the healthiest lifestyles, so I won't pretend we can extrapolate that to the general population, but it's still better than what I thought it showed. Probably why the CDC put it on their website. And then look how it got famous ... 70% of the infected inmates had been vaccinated :)[/QUOTE]

Much appreciate the further insight. Although I don't take the data for much given the sample size and lack of controls it's actually very pro vax. Almost everything gets twisted negatively by anti-vax crowd.

[QUOTE=_zman;1647644703]Co-worker with fully vaxxed parents are in the ICU right now. Yep, the vax works great.[/QUOTE]

Just two people, which alone makes it meaningless, but on top of that they most likely elderly, and are they perfectly healthy? For all we know they are in the extreme risk bracket, or perhaps die without vax but survive with it. Two old people being hospitalized with vax doesn't mean it doesn't work great. Just look at the percentages of vaxed and unvaxed in the hospital due to Covid right now, clear confirmation they work great.

Nope, it’s dumb to get the Covid shot for my age group. As of right now, I have zero percent chance of myocarditis, blood clots, and any other adverse reaction from the shot. So why would I take a shot that then increases my chances of contracting one of those reactions to a percentage greater than zero?

And no, I don’t care about your grandma. Especially not enough to jeopardize my own health.

[QUOTE=_zman;1647644703]Co-worker with fully vaxxed parents are in the ICU right now. Yep, the vax works great.[/QUOTE]

Always ask which one they got if possible.
I suspect the J+J people are getting infected more than the Moderna/Pfizer folks, but that is just my own observation.

Breakthrough Infections only happen because of the vaccinated...let that sink in

[QUOTE=Paul Kreul;1647654743]Breakthrough Infections only happen because of the vaccinated...let that sink in[/QUOTE]

Almost zen, that.

[QUOTE=_zman;1647644703]Co-worker with fully vaxxed parents are in the ICU right now. Yep, the vax works great.[/QUOTE]n=1 son.

[QUOTE=z4v4;1647664233]n=1 son.[/QUOTE]

He said parents, which is plural, so n=2 (or more).

[QUOTE=Plateauplower;1647665843]He said parents, which is plural, so n=2 (or more).[/QUOTE]In lib world, parents = 1.

[QUOTE=MuscleXtreme;1647654013]Nope, it’s dumb to get the Covid shot for my age group. As of right now, I have zero percent chance of myocarditis, blood clots, and any other adverse reaction from the shot. So why would I take a shot that then increases my chances of contracting one of those reactions to a percentage greater than zero?...[/QUOTE]

Your post doesn't make sense.

[QUOTE=supramax;1647666483]Your post doesn't make sense.[/QUOTE]

Welcome to the misc. Most posts here don't make sense.