No bro, never.
Printable View
No bro, never.
Through the CDC's own data, vaccinated people can still transmit the virus, the vaccine just reduces their own individual symptoms.
If that's the case, why are they pushing so hard for everyone to become vaccinated? Is it not my choice if I want to reduce my own symptoms or not?
I can understand the mask mandate because that has shown to work and it's a minor inconvenience compared to submitting myself to what is essentially an experimental medical procedure.
[img]https://i.imgur.com/EhU6sZn.png[/img]
[QUOTE=GrouchyUSMC;1648015753]Through the CDC's own data, vaccinated people can still transmit the virus, the vaccine just reduces their own individual symptoms.
If that's the case, why are they pushing so hard for everyone to become vaccinated? Is it not my choice if I want to reduce my own symptoms or not?
I can understand the mask mandate because that has shown to work and it's a minor inconvenience compared to submitting myself to what is essentially an experimental medical procedure.[/QUOTE]
I'm with you for the most part. Couple of things though. It's not experimental at this point. We have more follow up and safety data on these vaccines than on almost any other vaccine available. Long term side effects aren't side effects that show up years down the line, they're actually side effects that last a long time. There's never been a vaccine where those haven't all been apparent within weeks or months, so at this point, they've all shown up, we're just getting data on their prevalence. Cardiomyopathy is the one I'd be most concerned with, especially in young boys, but the data will likely show that the risk of cardiomyopathy is much higher from an asymptomatic infection than it is from the vaccines, and everyone is going to catch it, so you pick your risk. The only study I've seen that looked at that question well was in college aged men where the risk of cardiomyopathy was 60+ times higher from actually getting COVID than from the vaccines. Could just be 5 to 10 times the risk, but even so, the vaccine starts to look pretty safe when you compare apples to apples.
As far as vaccine mandates go and what it does that justifies them, you actually do have a decreased risk of catching and spreading the virus if you're vaccinated. Unfortunately, with a vaccine to the original wild type epitopes and the currently circulating strain being mostly delta, it seems like you only have a 25% or so reduction in risk of catching it. But if you do catch in post vaccine, you'll probably have a lower viral load and there's evidence you'll clear it faster. Based on that, you're likely stop spreading it sooner which is what people pushing for mandates focus on.
Still, it's hard to get good numeric data on that and I don't know if the models using the data we have show enough benefit to warrant it. Decisions like that are always somewhat political. I think it's probably a waste of time making this mandatory until we get a vaccine to the delta variants epitopes, but my company is not running those trials, so I don't know what the timeline on them is.
Anyway, if you're an adult who hasn't had the virus, you're definitely safer getting it than refusing it for political reasons, but you have to do what makes you comfortable! Stay well and stay grouchy
So i highlighted 8 parts of this poll and of course got* Access Denied* but i felt the opinions were quite interesting among the 3,158 respondents.
cliffs: party affiliation shapes thought.
[url]https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/354938/adults-estimates-covid-hospitalization-risk.aspx[/url]
[QUOTE=JustTheDad;1648028723]I'm with you for the most part. Couple of things though. It's not experimental at this point...[/quote]
The same was said about Agent Orange and Vietnam, although we know how that turned out.
I am not generally opposed to vaccines, but coming from a military background where links are being drawn from what we are exposed to and called "safe" to serious health issues, I'd much rather wait for more long term data.
[QUOTE=GrouchyUSMC;1648037523]The same was said about Agent Orange and Vietnam, although we know how that turned out.
I am not generally opposed to vaccines, but coming from a military background where links are being drawn from what we are exposed to and called "safe" to serious health issues, I'd much rather wait for more long term data.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. I wouldn't draw a parallel with agent orange. Not to thalidomide or TGN1412 either. You have to take into account the mechanism of action. and that's what tells you what the vaccine is actually capable of affecting. I'm not saying there couldn't be effects that show up years down the line, but I can say that if we start seeing an increase in some auto immune disease 5 years from now in people who got the mRNA vaccines, we'll be seeing it more in the people who had SARS CoV2 infections, even asymptomatic ones. So yes, there's always a risk, but compare it to the virus, not to nothing, because you will get exposed at some point if you haven't already.
That said, two of the technologies are new and you need to be comfortable with whichever one you accept. I was because I knew what was in my vaccine and how it worked, but that goes with my job. Anyway, if you have a question that's about the vaccines, and not about the politics and such, I'm happy to try to answer it. Obviously I'm just some stranger on an internet board so my advice, like any other strangers, should be worth to you about what you're paying for it.
[QUOTE=JustTheDad;1648028723] It's not experimental at this point. We have more follow up and safety data on these vaccines than on almost any other vaccine available. Long term side effects aren't side effects that show up years down the line, they're actually side effects that last a long time. There's never been a vaccine where those haven't all been apparent within weeks or months, so at this point, they've all shown up, we're just getting data on their prevalence. [/QUOTE]
That is an interesting statement from a scientific perspective. Vaccines that have been in use for longer periods of time, should have more follow-up data. The lack of latent manifestations of long-term side effects from other vaccines is irrelevant, because they are not the same technology. Finally, if it’s not experimental, why do you state that “we’re just getting the data on their prevalence” regarding side effects? From a scientific method standpoint, is the experiment typically done before the data is available? It would seem that the experiment wouldn’t be complete until the data was received and evaluated. That said, a lot of the new “science” I’ve seen related to covid has been different than the science I learned in pathology and medical microbiology coursework. New science is so “progressive” ;).
[QUOTE=Plateauplower;1648047403]That is an interesting statement from a scientific perspective. Vaccines that have been in use for longer periods of time, should have more follow-up data. The lack of latent manifestations of long-term side effects from other vaccines is irrelevant, because they are not the same technology. Finally, if it’s not experimental, why do you state that “we’re just getting the data on their prevalence” regarding side effects? From a scientific method standpoint, is the experiment typically done before the data is available? It would seem that the experiment wouldn’t be complete until the data was received and evaluated. That said, a lot of the new “science” I’ve seen related to covid has been different than the science I learned in pathology and medical microbiology coursework. New science is so “progressive” ;).[/QUOTE]
Semantics :) We can't predict the prevalence of an illness 10 years from now with any certainty. Look at MS and it's geographic distribution. Is that due to some childhood virus that's more common in the north due to weather? We won't know the long term implications of having antibodies to spike protein for a long time. Maybe decades, maybe never, and even if we do find it, it's difficult to attribute that risk to the vaccine when we know that everyone will have antibodies within a few years. We also know the people who actually contract the virus will have a larger variety that could potentially lead to an auto immune phenomenon. So will we see a 3 fold increased risk of ALS or pulmonary HTN or ED in vaccinated people versus a 15 fold risk from the virus in 15 or 25 years? Maybe. It's unlikely, but I don't rule anything out and there's no reason to avoid talking about the possibility. But again, I don't consider it to be a factor because it will be due to the immunity, not the mechanism of action of the vaccines, and we can't actually avoid that immunity unless we live in a bubble. We also know it will be in favor of the mRNA vaccines simply due to the spectrum, but again, we can't predict the numbers so it doesn't factor into a guidance or recommendation.
As far as when the "experiment" is done, right now we know the side effects of the vaccine that are worth being concerned about, and of them, the myocarditis in young men and boys seems to be the most concerning one. That's as long as we use the right vaccine in the right people/age group/sex. So what do is compare the increased risk with the vaccine, to the (increased risk from the virus*the probability of getting the virus in the next couple of years). When we do that, the vaccines start to look good again, and it doesn't matter if choose the highest calculated vaccine risk that's published or if you believe in a lower published risks. When your ratio is at worst 6:1 if you fudge the numbers and extrapolate based on missed cases as much as possible, and it's 420:1 if you fudge the other way, and both calculations favor the vaccine, you recommend the vaccine.
We'll never stop tracking the data, we'll continue to narrow down that range, and if that means the vaccine is always "experimental", so be it. But if continued monitoring and improving our data means every drug is experimental, then so is every food, beverage, activity, etc. that we track risk data on. I'm OK with that.
[QUOTE=GrouchyUSMC;1648015753]Through the CDC's own data, vaccinated people can still transmit the virus, the vaccine just reduces their own individual symptoms.
If that's the case, why are they pushing so hard for everyone to become vaccinated? Is it not my choice if I want to reduce my own symptoms or not?
I can understand the mask mandate because that has shown to work and it's a minor inconvenience compared to submitting myself to what is essentially an experimental medical procedure.[/QUOTE]
How has the mask mandate been shown to work? I have yet to see a study showing that. I know for a fact that even the N95 masks worn perfectly can still allow virus aerosols through because they are still smaller than the mask holes. Not to mention the average cloth diaper people have on their face which has nowhere near the protection of the N95.
[QUOTE=mtpockets;1647998313]YouTube will block all anti-vaccine content, moving beyond its ban on false information about the COVID vaccines to include content that contains misinformation about other approved vaccines, it said in a blog post on Wednesday.[/QUOTE]
It's ok, all in the name of "science" I'm sure...:rolleyes:
i did get the jabs both of them , kinda regretted it heard some rummers that it had unborn babies in it and I am against abortion
[QUOTE=Fishman15;1648065493]How has the mask mandate been shown to work? I have yet to see a study showing that. I know for a fact that even the N95 masks worn perfectly can still allow virus aerosols through because they are still smaller than the mask holes. Not to mention the average cloth diaper people have on their face which has nowhere near the protection of the N95.[/QUOTE]
Can you define "work"? It's been shown to decrease the rate of transmission in matched populations by 10% or so over a given time frame. Can't remember how many weeks that was but the study is in this thread somewhere and you could google it. They matched a bunch of rural villages somewhere and gave half of them masks to wear in public. 10% is not bad since most of the transmission seems to be in small groups and families where masks aren't worn.
It's just a stop-gap and courtesy. I guess the question becomes, how much reduction is required to make it acceptable to you because it's definitely going to help protect the cashier at the store you shop at or others who are in close proximity to you. Even 100% reduction in those settings will only make a small difference overall.
[QUOTE=Amber2021;1648065723]i did get the jabs both of them , kinda regretted it heard some rummers that it had unborn babies in it and I am against abortion[/QUOTE]
I got the shots because the babies can live in me, forever.
[img]https://media.giphy.com/media/ZQrVQtav6gnzG/giphy.gif?cid=ecf05e47itnynns7t22ugk6hm2zvnjlr1soge1lebdz2d590&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g[/img]
[img]https://i.imgur.com/sSNFtCk.jpg?1[/img]
[img]https://i.imgur.com/5YzUTEq.jpg?1[/img]
[QUOTE=mtpockets;1648002993]Kyrie Irving and Andrew Wiggins will each lose more than $15 MILLION if they refuse to get the jab ... because the NBA just announced it will NOT pay players who miss games for not having the COVID-19 vaccine.
The Association has not made it mandatory for players to be vaxxed, but local mandates in San Francisco and New York City will keep guys like Wiggins and Irving -- who have reportedly elected against the vaccine -- from being able to play home games for the Warriors and Nets, respectively.
Considering NBA teams play half of their games at home, this would keep the 2 stars from playing in at least 41 games this season ... which will put a serious hurt on their bank accounts.
Wiggins -- who is in a 5-year, $147,710,050 deal -- will reportedly pass up on $15.8 million this season ... while Irving -- 4-year, $136,490,600 contract -- will forfeit $17.5 million.[/QUOTE]
I really hope they miss at least a few games. It'd be a blip on the P&L for the NBA, but I'm sure there's a few fans that wouldn't attend if more players decide not to play in NYC.
[QUOTE=_zman;1648081693]I really hope they miss at least a few games. It'd be a blip on the P&L for the NBA, but I'm sure there's a few fans that wouldn't attend if more players decide not to play in NYC.[/QUOTE]
This will only affect unvaccinated players in home games in NY (Knicks and Nets) and SF (Warriors); it won’t apply to visiting teams.
Los Angeles officials signaled they would vote next week to prohibit unvaccinated people from entering most businesses in the United States' second-largest city, one of the nation's most severe crackdowns so far of the COVID-19 pandemic
[url]https://reut.rs/3F5z2Qg[/url]
[QUOTE=JustTheDad;1648054363]Semantics :) We can't predict the prevalence of an illness 10 years from now with any certainty. Look at MS and it's geographic distribution. Is that due to some childhood virus that's more common in the north due to weather? We won't know the long term implications of having antibodies to spike protein for a long time. Maybe decades, maybe never, and even if we do find it, it's difficult to attribute that risk to the vaccine when we know that everyone will have antibodies within a few years. We also know the people who actually contract the virus will have a larger variety that could potentially lead to an auto immune phenomenon. So will we see a 3 fold increased risk of ALS or pulmonary HTN or ED in vaccinated people versus a 15 fold risk from the virus in 15 or 25 years? Maybe. It's unlikely, but I don't rule anything out and there's no reason to avoid talking about the possibility. But again, I don't consider it to be a factor because it will be due to the immunity, not the mechanism of action of the vaccines, and we can't actually avoid that immunity unless we live in a bubble. We also know it will be in favor of the mRNA vaccines simply due to the spectrum, but again, we can't predict the numbers so it doesn't factor into a guidance or recommendation.
As far as when the "experiment" is done, right now we know the side effects of the vaccine that are worth being concerned about, and of them, the myocarditis in young men and boys seems to be the most concerning one. That's as long as we use the right vaccine in the right people/age group/sex. So what do is compare the increased risk with the vaccine, to the (increased risk from the virus*the probability of getting the virus in the next couple of years). When we do that, the vaccines start to look good again, and it doesn't matter if choose the highest calculated vaccine risk that's published or if you believe in a lower published risks. When your ratio is at worst 6:1 if you fudge the numbers and extrapolate based on missed cases as much as possible, and it's 420:1 if you fudge the other way, and both calculations favor the vaccine, you recommend the vaccine.
We'll never stop tracking the data, we'll continue to narrow down that range, and if that means the vaccine is always "experimental", so be it. But if continued monitoring and improving our data means every drug is experimental, then so is every food, beverage, activity, etc. that we track risk data on. I'm OK with that.[/QUOTE]
You realize I was just being difficult right ;). Excellent post.
[QUOTE=mtpockets;1648083963]Los Angeles officials signaled they would vote next week to prohibit unvaccinated people from entering most businesses in the United States' second-largest city, one of the nation's most severe crackdowns so far of the COVID-19 pandemic
[url]https://reut.rs/3F5z2Qg[/url][/QUOTE]If the vax actually WORKED I could possibly see the value in this.
[QUOTE=Plateauplower;1648084223]You realize I was just being difficult right ;) [/QUOTE]
Thought so, but it was also valid and it was such a crazy day at work that I guess I used the post as an excuse to not work for 15 minutes. I'm covering a few studies for people who are out until next week here and in the EU. Problem is they were both already covering for their two backups on these studies, because those two are away on vacation. Perfect storm lol.
I'm pretty good, but I don't know their studies well so stuff that would have taken them 10 minutes took me an hour. No COVID studies, but one of the two actually is out with COVID despite being fully vaccinated. That's how it goes I guess.
Pharmaceutical company Merck says its experimental COVID-19 pill reduced hospitalizations and deaths by half in people recently infected with the coronavirus.
The company said it would soon ask health officials in the U.S. and around the world to authorize its use.
Merck’s drug Molnupiravir would be the first pill shown to treat COVID-19, a potentially major advance in efforts to fight the pandemic.
[QUOTE=mtpockets;1648114423]Pharmaceutical company Merck says its experimental COVID-19 pill reduced hospitalizations and deaths by half in people recently infected with the coronavirus.
The company said it would soon ask health officials in the U.S. and around the world to authorize its use.
Merck’s drug Molnupiravir would be the first pill shown to treat COVID-19, a potentially major advance in efforts to fight the pandemic.[/QUOTE]
A buddy in Canada has been working on this and told me to "wait for the pill" but I need more details.
Thanks for the info
[QUOTE=7Seconds;1648083263]This will only affect unvaccinated players in home games in NY (Knicks and Nets) and SF (Warriors); it won’t apply to visiting teams.[/QUOTE]
Well that makes a lot of sense LOL
[QUOTE=mtpockets;1648114423]Pharmaceutical company Merck says its experimental COVID-19 pill reduced hospitalizations and deaths by half in people recently infected with the coronavirus.
The company said it would soon ask health officials in the U.S. and around the world to authorize its use.
Merck’s drug Molnupiravir would be the first pill shown to treat COVID-19, a potentially major advance in efforts to fight the pandemic.[/QUOTE]
I wonder if that's more effective than vitamin D? Just lol at big pharma looking for new product lines.
Would be interesting to see a breakout of COVID profits for all pharma companies.
[QUOTE=_zman;1648115363]Well that makes a lot of sense LOL
[/QUOTE]
We are 5,000 posts into this thread so not much point in discussing the efficacy of the vaccine or my view on vaccine mandates but from the viewpoint of the city it does make sense. A mayor can dictate this kind of thing because the team is an employer based in their city. A mayor of NYC doesn’t really have the authority to mandate what a company/employer based in Philadelphia does with its employees. Now, if a mayor wants to go the “anyone that wants to go in a building with x number of people in it needs to be vaccinated” that’s a different story, but if it is a rule based on the employer-employee relationship, they need that jurisdiction.
[QUOTE=7Seconds;1648115953]We are 5,000 posts into this thread so not much point in discussing the efficacy of the vaccine or my view on vaccine mandates but from the viewpoint of the city it does make sense. A mayor can dictate this kind of thing because the team is an employer based in their city. A mayor of NYC doesn’t really have the authority to mandate what a company/employer based in Philadelphia does with its employees. Now, if a mayor wants to go the “anyone that wants to go in a building with x number of people in it needs to be vaccinated” that’s a different story, but if it is a rule based on the employer-employee relationship, they need that jurisdiction.[/QUOTE]
I think the rule applies to all patrons of NYC businesses. The NBA is mandating vaccination for all non-player employees. The players just have more clout.
[QUOTE=TolerantLactose;1648116623]I think the rule applies to all patrons of NYC businesses. The NBA is mandating vaccination for all non-player employees. The players just have more clout.[/QUOTE]
The players have a union, I imagine any other non-player employees who are unionized will also be exempted by the NBA.
[QUOTE=_zman;1648115363]Well that makes a lot of sense LOL
I wonder if that's more effective than vitamin D? Just lol at big pharma looking for new product lines.
Would be interesting to see a breakout of COVID profits for all pharma companies.[/QUOTE]
Why does everting have to be a controversy? oh wait, cuz it’s more fun :D
I saw the news and made another thread a lil while ago…one of the responses below from another use. Big time if true
[QUOTE=frankdtank20;1648115723]Merck already signed a deal with the US government for over a billion dollars months ago, for this pill. FDA will approve it, at $1000 per treatment.
If I remember correctly it causes the virus to have so many mutations that it cannot replicate. People are justly making fun of Pfizer though because the biomechanism of the pill it is looking to bring to market is the main way Ivermectin works against SARS2, as a protease inhibitor. Effects of course not identical but same class of antiviral action.
Snopes and fact checker sites are already trying to dismiss the running joke "Pfizermectin" as false. Should be "partly or mostly true."[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=7Seconds;1648117323]The players have a union, I imagine any other non-player employees who are unionized will also be exempted by the NBA.[/QUOTE]
The refs have a union, I believe.