Washington Nationals game postponed…

gatorz1209

WISCONSIN FAN — IGNORE
Gold Member
Jan 21, 2005
25,977
29,169
113
I'm not a "naysayer", (unless you're referring to the chosen agendas and narratives), but there's no doubt we need to manage this July surge, (similar to the surge this time last year???). The question is, what's the best way to go about doing it, and therein lies most of the debate.
As for deaths and serious illness/long haul effects from Covid, I’d say the vaccine is a good way to go about it.
 

Daddy4?

All-American
Gold Member
Dec 10, 2009
3,895
4,326
113
And maybe one or two were symptomatic with the sniffles. This vaccine works and I absolutely hate they are testing vaccinated players.
Why? Sounds like you can be vaccinated and still get sick and spread. I agree theoretically, but this is some crazy junk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gatorz1209

gatorz1209

WISCONSIN FAN — IGNORE
Gold Member
Jan 21, 2005
25,977
29,169
113
Why? Sounds like you can be vaccinated and still get sick and spread. I agree theoretically, but this is some crazy junk.
Yes but to be honest, everyone has had their chance at being vaccinated. Why should you punish those who chose to vaccinate?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Daddy4?

au4life_rz

First Round Draft Pick
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
31,361
9,791
113
Atlanta, (Originally from B'ham)
As for deaths and serious illness/long haul effects from Covid, I’d say the vaccine is a good way to go about it.

Absolutely. We all have differing risk management processes, and most importantly, different risk tolerances, and everyone has their own set of variables that they use in their process. Most will accept the risk on the one side or the other. With the new vaccines, or with Covid. This is precisely why I feel we should adopt an approach that entails full disclosure, openness, and honesty. So that all are positioned to make informed decisions for themselves, as opposed to having others decide for them.

For you personally, given your set of variables and chosen beliefs, it was a no brainer to take the new vaccines. There are definitely people who see no risk, or a smaller amount of risk associated with taking these new vaccines, based on what we know now. I've seen others who given their particular variables and risk thresholds etc., arrived at a different conclusion and determined that there is lower risk for them, associated with potentially catching COVID based on what we know now.

It's always been this way, and we have to figure out the best way to move forward given that reality.
 

gatorz1209

WISCONSIN FAN — IGNORE
Gold Member
Jan 21, 2005
25,977
29,169
113
Absolutely. We all have differing risk management processes, and most importantly, different risk tolerances, and everyone has their own set of variables that they use in their process. Most will accept the risk on the one side or the other. With the new vaccines, or with Covid. This is precisely why I feel we should adopt an approach that entails full disclosure, openness, and honesty. So that all are positioned to make informed decisions for themselves, as opposed to having others decide for them.

For you personally, given your set of variables and chosen beliefs, it was a no brainer to take the new vaccines. There are definitely people who see no risk, or a smaller amount of risk associated with taking these new vaccines, based on what we know now. I've seen others who given their particular variables and risk thresholds etc., arrived at a different conclusion and determined that there is lower risk for them, associated with potentially catching COVID based on what we know now.

It's always been this way, and we have to figure out the best way to move forward given that reality.
You’re right, with my newborn infant, I will take no chances with a manufactured virus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: au4life_rz

au4life_rz

First Round Draft Pick
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
31,361
9,791
113
Atlanta, (Originally from B'ham)
You’re right, with my newborn infant, I will take no chances with a manufactured virus.

I think that's a great analogy as to how the risk/reward rubric changes. I'm the same way. There are some risks I'll readily take for MYSELF, but I've always been more conservative with my kids, and/or others and their kids etc.

Some of the people in my sphere of influence are coming to different conclusions than I am, and I'm trying my best to simply supply balanced, objective and complete information without steering too much, unless they ask for my two cents of logic and rationale, (then I'll try my best to help them consider what I'm able to recognize as important variables for them).

Of course, this approach can upset others who feel that I should turn off my brain, and just go with the narrative, or the rationale that they applied for themselves. These things are tough. We all want the same outcome, but we frequently disagree as to the best way to get there.
 

gatorz1209

WISCONSIN FAN — IGNORE
Gold Member
Jan 21, 2005
25,977
29,169
113
I think that's a great analogy as to how the risk/reward rubric changes. I'm the same way. There are some risks I'll readily take for MYSELF, but I've always been more conservative with my kids, and/or others and their kids etc.

Some of the people in my sphere of influence are coming to different conclusions than I am, and I'm trying my best to simply supply balanced, objective and complete information without steering too much, unless they ask for my two cents of logic and rationale, (then I'll try my best to help them consider what I'm able to recognize as important variables for them).

Of course, this approach can upset others who feel that I should turn off my brain, and just go with the narrative, or the rationale that they applied for themselves. These things are tough. We all want the same outcome, but we frequently disagree as to the best way to get there.
Well, I appreciate the challenging/contrarian perspective, if that helps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: au4life_rz

Stumpfan

QUALITY AND QUANTITY
Gold Member
Feb 14, 2003
179,175
45,819
113
I'm referring to the guiding entities and leading agencies, and really to a lessor degree, everyone that buys in and follow the approach that operating to a "nobel lie" is the best way to get folks to take the vaccines. Don't be open, honest, and inform them with balanced information, but instead, use hook, crook, deceit and marketing tricks.

Many of you chose to come here daily and repeat the spun propaganda, but when someone presents a cogent argument, or facts, you deny, run and deflect...rinse and repeat. That does NOT facilitate intelligent discourse, and this thing is serious. We should all be contributing our two cents as a means of putting our heads together to understand the best means of moving forward towards resolution.

Even after the weird announcement yesterday, (after I'd been humbly pointing that out as a potential risk for months, and being constantly ridiculed for it), not a single person who scoffed at the idea, admitted that it'd come to fruition, (even if it's later rebuffed). At any rate, there are repeated examples that show folks are more interested in "winning" a silly partisan style internet board pissing match, and "not being wrong", than they are kicking around rocks in hopes of helping to inform everyone with BALANCED info, an somehow possibly getting us closer to a resolution for the weird little beast of a pathogen. It's truly sad that our country has eroded to this point. Noble lies, fake news twitter battling, and zero integrity.
You’re a conspiracy guy. We get it.
 

FIG-JAM

First Round Draft Pick
Gold Member
Nov 20, 2012
25,775
49,190
113
Yes, of course we’ve known about multiple strains, and the initial efficacy rates were 95% against those that were primarily circulating. Delta is completely different, but thank God the vaccines are effective for the Delta at keeping infections mild for a strong majority of those vaccinated.

This seems important as we move goal posts around about the vaccine and talk about viral load

from the wapo yesterday:

“Vaccinated people infected with delta have measurable viral loads similar to those who are unvaccinated and infected with the variant.”

————
how the science re: viral load

 
  • Like
Reactions: gatorz1209

gatorz1209

WISCONSIN FAN — IGNORE
Gold Member
Jan 21, 2005
25,977
29,169
113
This seems important as we move goal posts around about the vaccine and talk about viral load

from the wapo yesterday:

“Vaccinated people infected with delta have measurable viral loads similar to those who are unvaccinated and infected with the variant.”

————
how the science re: viral load

With vaccinations available to everyone above 15 years of age now, we should never care about case counts again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FIG-JAM

FIG-JAM

First Round Draft Pick
Gold Member
Nov 20, 2012
25,775
49,190
113
With vaccinations available to everyone above 15 years of age now, we should never care about case counts again.

agree. Case counts only matter if they are serious cases.

Anecdotal- I know of one personal friend that is vaccinated and in the hospital. I know of 10 other cases of vaccinated people in a different hospital in the same city.

the wapo article said vaccinated people have the same viral load as unvaccinated. That’s bad bc large viral load leads to contagion and severity of illness. If the viral load can be the same in vaccinated and unvaccinated people then it seems to mean the vaccine isn’t as effective as we hoped.
 

FIG-JAM

First Round Draft Pick
Gold Member
Nov 20, 2012
25,775
49,190
113
Also from the wapo article:

Hasn’t this always been the case?

—-
“One of the slides states that there is a higher risk among older age groups for hospitalization and death relative to younger people, regardless of vaccination status.”

——
 
  • Like
Reactions: hsvtiger34

hsvtiger34

NOT A KISS-ASS
Gold Member
Jan 9, 2002
36,463
95,828
113
agree. Case counts only matter if they are serious cases.

Anecdotal- I know of one personal friend that is vaccinated and in the hospital. I know of 10 other cases of vaccinated people in a different hospital in the same city.

the wapo article said vaccinated people have the same viral load as unvaccinated. That’s bad bc large viral load leads to contagion and severity of illness. If the viral load can be the same in vaccinated and unvaccinated people then it seems to mean the vaccine isn’t as effective as we hoped.
This house of cards is starting to fall. Figures it would fall AFTER I got a Covid shot….
 

au4life_rz

First Round Draft Pick
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
31,361
9,791
113
Atlanta, (Originally from B'ham)
(Excerpt from another thread back in June).....

I think we need to do more work to ensure that vaccinated people can't be carriers that give the virus a chance to mutate. These supposed positives for vaccinated folks, could be a huge blind spot since most vaccinated folks won't be getting tested. I wonder if we've tested to see if fully vaccinated folks can generate a viral load high enough to pass COVID to others and do so long enough for the virus to mutate. That could be a HUGE curveball.

Lol. They have tested viral load for vaccinated people and it’s very low.

Holy shit at vaccinated people creating another variant........

Stomp and his band of idiots have ridiculed me continuously for weeks over me saying I thought there was a possibility that fully vaccinated folks could potentially spread COVID too. Now, yet again, he's been proven to be DEAD wrong by the latest info from the CDC saying that is true. Do you think he's acted remotely maturely and come back to apologize for ruining all of those threads, being SUPER cocky and adamant that he was right, and constantly saying that the humble suggestion above was completely ridiculous and as stupid as it gets etc.? Unfortunately not. He never mans up, displays integrity and admits that he was wrong.

While I'm almost expecting the guidance to change yet again, and wouldn't be surprised at all if the CDC were to come out with a way to explain off the latest information, current studies from Israel, and subsequent data that's come from subsequent studies here have apparently proven that fully vaccinated people can carry significant viral loads, and also spread COVID, (to both unvaccinated, and even others who are fully vaccinated). Bottom line, I'm just super grateful that we caught this potentially HUGE blind spot. The "experts, doctors and scientists" should have caught this particular edge case and pointed it out? You have to ask yourself why that didn't happen across a country full of intelligent and knowledgeable experts. That's why you don't dismiss ideas offhand, even if they are coming from an unqualified peon. Truly intelligent people know to evaluate info, ideas and arguments based on THEIR OWN MERIT, not just who they come from, and how many letters they have behind their name, or you risk missing something that could help.

I truly wish we had more on the board who were more concerned about conducting intelligent discourse, and generating ideas and potential solutions etc., rather than being "right", and "winning" an internet pissing contest. We can do better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TripleWood