Will you get vaccinated?

[OldFartTom]

Yea. No. Not 100%

Don't forget - early tests show vaccination results in a MUCH HIGHER (almost 7 times more) chance of "catching" one of the variants. Yep, much lower variant infection rates by NOT taking the vaccine...

What would be very interesting, I've not seen yet, would be to compare people who have had Covid... and if they are more likely to catch variants -- versus people who have been vaccinated to go on to catch variants

It could be the after effects of one SARS-CoV-2 variant (either virus exposure OR vaccination) means another variant can be caught more easily. Until we can make that distinction, the data isn't helpful, it might not be specific to the vaccine.

There are way too few, close to zero cases documented in US of re-infection by different strains. However there are plenty of examples in Brazil, including hospitalisations and deaths. Unfortunately we'll get that "data" all too soon.

[Eternalstuden79]

The article said "nearly 100%" not 100% but I think that's still too optimistic.
Astra Zeneca is claiming 100% (https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-ce...ii-trials.html)
I find that hard to believe and sure as we get bigger studies over longer time we'll see that % drop

Some people just don't develop antibodies following vaccination (I know an anaesthesiologist who doesn't for Hep. A vaccine for example, which is very bad) that's just how it works. So some people will get next to nothing from the vaccine, some people are unlucky...

Most of the vaccination data lists number in the 90's some as low as 70. The WHO has a 50% as the cut off for a quality line.

Even at 99% you'd expect a full vaccinated country like the US to still record over 1 milion cases.

[mtpockets]

[mtpockets]

[ectoBgone]

I realize that an hour and forty-five minutes is a lot for some people to sit through, but you may learn more about the immune system and its relevance to covid and vaccination in the first thirty minutes than you will in thirty months from the mainstream media. The entire discussion here though is something everyone should be aware of. These are not anti-vaxer conspiracists, but extremely measured, insightful, and educated experts (one in evolutionary biology and the other in vaccine development) who believe in vaccines.



tldr; Our rush to vaccinate in the midst of a pandemic with very targeted antigens could very well drive new variants against which we will run out of solutions. This is most problematic in the obsession to vaccinate young people, who already have a robust innate immunity to deal with the virus, but instead we are going to etch into the memory of their acquired immunity cells enough information for them to recognize new covid variants yet not be strong enough to actually deal with it. We effectively turn off their best general defense against covid in exchange for a targeted defense that will be more apt to create new variants and not be able to fight them off.

[mtpockets]

Budweiser
Now through May 16, or while supplies last, Budweiser is giving a free beer to anyone 21 years old and up -- who provide their proof of vaccination on ABeerOnBud.com. Bud fans first have to first register at the company's mycooler.com website.

Junior's Cheesecake
From now through Memorial Day, Junior's Restaurant will be offering a free mini cheesecake to anyone who shows their vaccine card at their landmark restaurant at Flatbush Ave. and DeKalb in Downtown Brooklyn. (In New York City only.)

Krispy Kreme
You can get one free glazed doughnut every day if you take your vaccination card to any Krispy Kreme location in the US, the company said in a press release. The card must show one or two shots of any Covid-19 vaccine to qualify, and the offer must be redeemed in store. And no, you don't need to purchase anything to get your daily free doughnut.

Nathan's Hot Dogs
If you visit Nathan's Famous in Coney Island with your vaccination card -- on the same day you get vaccinated -- you get a free hot dog. (In New York City only.)

Staples and Office Depot
Staples and Office Depot want vaccinated Americans to keep their vaccination record cards in good condition. So the office supply companies are offering free laminating services for those completed Covid-19 vaccination cards. A spokesperson for Staples told CNN that the service is available at all Staples locations in the US and currently has no end date.

White Castle
Between April 22 and May 31, burger chain White Castle is giving a free dessert-on-a-stick to anyone with proof they have received a Covid vaccine, according to the company. White Castle offers four versions of the dessert on a stick: Gooey Buttercake-on-a-Stick, Fudge Dipped Brownie-on-a-Stick, Fudge Dipped Cheesecake-on-a-Stick and, as of earlier this month, its Birthday Cake-on-a-Stick in honor of the company's centennial this year. No other purchase is necessary.

[CommitmentRulz]

tldr; Our rush to vaccinate in the midst of a pandemic with very targeted antigens could very well drive new variants against which we will run out of solutions. This is most problematic in the obsession to vaccinate young people, who already have a robust innate immunity to deal with the virus, but instead we are going to etch into the memory of their acquired immunity cells enough information for them to recognize new covid variants yet not be strong enough to actually deal with it.

Exactly. One study in Israel is ALREADY SHOWING that those vaccinated have almost an 8 times higher infection rate of one of the variants than the unvaccinated.

[x-trainer ben]

Exactly. One study in Israel is ALREADY SHOWING that those vaccinated have almost an 8 times higher infection rate of one of the variants than the unvaccinated.

Ok then as Bh says," You do you"

[Gabbar99]

Exactly. One study in Israel is ALREADY SHOWING that those vaccinated have almost an 8 times higher infection rate of one of the variants than the unvaccinated.

To clarify, of those who get infected, the percentage of those with the variant was 8 times higher than the percent in the unvaccinated, meaning the variant is making it through the vaccination in greater fraction than the other strains are.

The way you said it almost implied that the vaccine made them more likely to get it, which is obviously not true.

[Gabbar99]

The entire discussion here though is something everyone should be aware of.

They should also be aware of:

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/co...vanden-bossche

[Mark1T]

I heard, that to log in here starting tomorrow, after you input your information, another box comes up and asks if you have been vaccinated. If the answer is "no," you are auto-banned and reported. I know a couple of peeps we might not be seeing for some days You all know who you are and I didn't even insinuate Cassie is one of those. But, Cassie, if you see this, start running Eastwardly right about nao. K, girl?

[Gabbar99]

Yea. No. Not 100%

Don't forget - early tests show vaccination results in a MUCH HIGHER (almost 7 times more) chance of "catching" one of the variants. Yep, much lower variant infection rates by NOT taking the vaccine...

Didn't see that you also posted this. This is a misunderstanding. It works like this:

say there are 100,000 vaccinated and 100,000 unvaccinated people.

In the unvaccinated, 3000 get Covid. Of those, 30 (1%) have the variant.

In the vaccinated, 40 get Covid. Of those 40, 3 (8%) have the variant.

So the percent among the infected in the vaccinated is 8 times higher than in the unvaccinated. But the vaccinated are much less likely to get infected at all and are also less likely to be infected by the variant.

Your garden is getting eaten up by rabbits, mostly cottontails but some jackrabbits. So you put up a fence. It keeps out most of the rabbits, keeping out both cottontails and jackrabbits, but of the few who do make it in, there's a higher percentage of jackrabbits than there was before. The fence did not increase the number of jackrabbits making it in, it just increased the percentage.

[mtpockets]

Watching UFC 261, quite the crowd in attendance in Jacksonville

[TryingBB]

Didn't see that you also posted this. This is a misunderstanding. It works like this:

say there are 100,000 vaccinated and 100,000 unvaccinated people.

In the unvaccinated, 3000 get Covid. Of those, 30 (1%) have the variant.

In the vaccinated, 40 get Covid. Of those 40, 3 (8%) have the variant.

So the percent among the infected in the vaccinated is 8 times higher than in the unvaccinated. But the vaccinated are much less likely to get infected at all and are also less likely to be infected by the variant.

Your garden is getting eaten up by rabbits, mostly cottontails but some jackrabbits. So you put up a fence. It keeps out most of the rabbits, keeping out both cottontails and jackrabbits, but of the few who do make it in, there's a higher percentage of jackrabbits than there was before. The fence did not increase the number of jackrabbits making it in, it just increased the percentage.

I got my first shot and then saw the post you responded to. I’m like fukin chit. Then I see your post.

Repped!

Can you please share references to this strain/study you talk about?

Edit: found this https://www.reuters.com/world/middle...ly-2021-04-18/

[ectoBgone]

They should also be aware of:

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/co...vanden-bossche

Thanks, I never thought of googling the possibility that someone out there disagreed with him! In any case, dialogue is good and that is the point of a hypothesis after all. I certainly do not blindly accept that his hypothesis is right, and I surely hope he is wrong. The problem is that for any thinking person, it is a completely reasonable viewpoint to consider. Sadly, while I could barely get through the inaccuracies of the first few paragraphs of that article you linked to make it worth my while, I persisted anyway yet it did not alleviate the reasonable concerns from the video that warrant thinking about. If you never actually listened to it, I think it's worth your time. Bret's tack record on this stuff from wearing masks to the lab leak hypotheses has been much better than the "experts" hand picked by the ones who want to shape and control the narrative for you.

and that same guy will probably also tell ya 20 years of using the same supplements you're using will kill your liver....

There's always gonna be some idiot out there trying to make a name for themselves (or stay relevant) by going against the norm and "breakin the bad news" ..

4 months after the vaccine and all this awesome data already ?

be smart and start examining the data that DOES'T fit your narrative or beliefs

Examining what data? We don't have any, and that's the point. Maybe during your exercise of completely missing the point, you meant to suggest that I should start considering other hypotheses that don't align with my current views? Well, that's how I got here actually. Most of my news feed is informed by reading sources like STAT news, the Lancet, and infectious disease expert Amesh Adalja, all of whom generally advocate mass vaccination. The irony in your post is amusing at least.

[x-trainer ben]

Watching UFC 261, quite the crowd in attendance in Jacksonville

Was that the 17 sec fight?
Drink your milk and get calcium.

[mtpockets]

Was that the 17 sec fight?
Drink your milk and get calcium.

one of them yes

[mtpockets]

[Plateauplower]

Maybe they read this standford study about masks

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7680614/

I’m not anti mask, I believe they have been demonstrated to be effective in some cases, specifically in clinical settings, but interesting study. Not yet peer reviewed and errors in the abstract aside, it has some pretty stunning and brave points from an acedimic source. Pretty sure the author will not be getting any research grants going forward lol.

[ljimd]

Maybe they read this standford study about masks

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7680614/

I hope they didn't read it pp. The study appears
to be fake (Stanford, USA Today, Forbes).

[mtpockets]

Maybe they read this standford study about masks

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7680614/

I’m not anti mask, I believe they have been demonstrated to be effective in some cases, specifically in clinical settings, but interesting study. Not yet peer reviewed and errors in the abstract aside, it has some pretty stunning and brave points from an acedimic source.

Damn Brother, that was long, but interesting. Thanks for posting that.

Pretty sure the author will not be getting any research grants going forward lol.

Lol, you could be right about that

[x-trainer ben]

Man these guys are sneaky as chit, read the AP NEWS opinion on it.

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-629043235973.

[mtpockets]

[Plateauplower]

I hope they didn't read it pp. The study appears
to be fake (Stanford, USA Today, Forbes).

I wondered about that, considering the errors and some of the “findings” seemed a stretch. I wonder why it is still on the site?

[Gabbar99]

I wondered about that, considering the errors and some of the “findings” seemed a stretch. I wonder why it is still on the site?

What site? I'd seen that make the rounds, but didn't see anyone was trying to connect it to Stanford. It was in a "publication" that gets listed on ncbi, which doesn't mean much, but it's not a real medical journal, it's not peer reviewed, or apparently reviewed at all since it's in broken English and has grammar mistakes in the abstract. It's a place for a lone kook to dump baseless speculation and pseudoscience and pretend to have a publication.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_Hypotheses

This is a just guy throwing out a hypothesis, which is the expressed purpose of the publication. And this publication has a reputation for providing a forum for kooks. It's fine, there probably should be a place for kooks to throw something at the wall and see if it sticks. Don't know that it should be taken down. It's a publication for unreviewed hypotheses; don't know that the guy did anything wrong. But it shouldn't be taken as proof of something.

[Gabbar99]

Gotta defend the weathermen. If they say there's an 80% chance of rain tomorrow and it doesn't rain, that doesn't mean they were "wrong", no more than saying a player has an 80% free throw percentage is wrong if he then misses a free throw.

People understand that in sports but refuse to understand it in other areas of life. No one says masks or distancing or shut downs prevent all spread of covid or that if you don't do those things you're definitely get it or if you get it you're definitely going to die. It's all about increasing or decreasing risks. It's really not a hard concept.

[mtpockets]

[eomrat]

Gotta defend the weathermen. If they say there's an 80% chance of rain tomorrow and it doesn't rain, that doesn't mean they were "wrong", no more than saying a player has an 80% free throw percentage is wrong if he then misses a free throw.

People understand that in sports but refuse to understand it in other areas of life. No one says masks or distancing or shut downs prevent all spread of covid or that if you don't do those things you're definitely get it or if you get it you're definitely going to die. It's all about increasing or decreasing risks. It's really not a hard concept.

When meteorologists say there is an 80% chance of rain, they are saying that it will rain in 80% of the area covered by a particular weather station.

[OldFartTom]

When meteorologists say there is an 80% chance of rain, they are saying that it will rain in 80% of the area covered by a particular weather station.

Are they?? (that's simple question to be taken at face value)

[Plateauplower]

What site? I'd seen that make the rounds, but didn't see anyone was trying to connect it to Stanford. It was in a "publication" that gets listed on ncbi, which doesn't mean much, but it's not a real medical journal, it's not peer reviewed, or apparently reviewed at all since it's in broken English and has grammar mistakes in the abstract. It's a place for a lone kook to dump baseless speculation and pseudoscience and pretend to have a publication.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_Hypotheses

This is a just guy throwing out a hypothesis, which is the expressed purpose of the publication. And this publication has a reputation for providing a forum for kooks. It's fine, there probably should be a place for kooks to throw something at the wall and see if it sticks. Don't know that it should be taken down. It's a publication for unreviewed hypotheses; don't know that the guy did anything wrong. But it shouldn't be taken as proof of something.

National Institute of Health (nih.gov)