The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
03-02-2022, 01:18 PM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
I dunno maybe people like the CDC?
#COVID19 vaccines are effective at keeping you from getting COVID-19.
Vaccines are the best way to keep college students from getting and spreading the virus that causes COVID-19.
If you are fully vaccinated against #COVID19 (it’s been 2 weeks since the last shot in your series) and are exposed to someone with COVID-19, you are not required to quarantine if you haven’t had any symptoms.
Healthcare workers should get vaccinated for #COVID19 as soon as they can because they're more likely to be exposed and can spread the virus to others.
#COVID19 vaccines are an important tool to stop this pandemic. Millions of people in the U.S. have been safely vaccinated and are starting to return to activities they missed.
Vaccination is an important tool for protecting people in your community from COVID-19.
Widespread vaccination is a critical tool to help stop the pandemic. Getting your child or teen vaccinated can bring you one step closer to enjoying the activities they miss.
"vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don't get sick, it's not just in the clinical trails, it's also in real world data."
Challenge #9: Please try to mental gymnastics this sentence into meaning the director of the CDC was talking about hospitalizations.
And the Final Boss Challenge:
Vaccine Passports / Travel Requirements
Challenge #10: Please try to mental gymnastics the concept that Vaccine Passports and Vaccination Travel Requirements were not about slowing the spread (since the assumption was the vaccine stopped the spread) buy yet about hospitalizations, since the CDC warned travelers that:
Getting vaccinated is still the best way to protect yourself from severe disease and slow the spread of COVID-19.
Extra Credit: Vaccine Requirements for work. Firing employees who are unvaccinated.
Last edited by Braineack; 03-02-2022 at 02:12 PM.
Reply
0
0
03-02-2022, 01:28 PM
People die skydiving? LOL - The most reported issues are lesions and a few broken bones - REAL deadly.
A random though I came here to post: perhaps Putin was recently diagnosed with a terminal illness, and this is his last chance to grind his name into world history...
Current American Administration: "We stand with Ukraine".
Every single Ukrainian Soldier standing on the front line: "Where are you standing America? We can't see you!".
Reply
0
0
03-02-2022, 01:34 PM
I'm Miserable!
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 132
Total Cats: 10
I never said they were not effective against infection...because they are...just not as effective relative to hospitalization and death.
"The standard primary series for COVID-19 vaccines currently authorized or approved for use in the United States are less effective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection with the Omicron variant compared to earlier variants. A booster dose increases vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection, including against the Omicron variant. Vaccine effectiveness for boosters can be measured as 3 doses vs. 0 doses or 3 doses vs. 2 doses. (Vaccine effectiveness is calculated as 1-odds ratio comparing the odds of prior vaccination for people with and without COVID-19.)"
Basically, around ~80% for Delta and ~60% for Omicron.
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tra...-effectiveness
"The standard primary series for COVID-19 vaccines currently authorized or approved for use in the United States are less effective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection with the Omicron variant compared to earlier variants. A booster dose increases vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection, including against the Omicron variant. Vaccine effectiveness for boosters can be measured as 3 doses vs. 0 doses or 3 doses vs. 2 doses. (Vaccine effectiveness is calculated as 1-odds ratio comparing the odds of prior vaccination for people with and without COVID-19.)"
Basically, around ~80% for Delta and ~60% for Omicron.
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tra...-effectiveness
Reply
0
0
03-02-2022, 01:46 PM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
Monday, March 8, 2021
::SCEINCE EVOLVES::
Thrusday, May 13, 2021
You don't need to worry about coming in contact with someone positive with COVID? Is that because you can't catch or spread it? Because my vaccination clearly prevents the hospitalization of others!
“We know that people want to get vaccinated so they can get back to doing the things they enjoy with the people they love,” said CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, MPH. “There are some activities that fully vaccinated people can begin to resume now in their own homes. Everyone – even those who are vaccinated – should continue with all mitigation strategies when in public settings. As the science evolves and more people get vaccinated, we will continue to provide more guidance to help fully vaccinated people safely resume more activities.”
Thrusday, May 13, 2021
Fully vaccinated people can resume all activities as normal before the pandemic began, without wearing a mask or maintaining physical distance, except in areas where it is required.
...If someone who is fully vaccinated is exposed to someone who is positive for COVID-19, they will not need to isolate or get tested, unless showing symptoms.
...If someone who is fully vaccinated is exposed to someone who is positive for COVID-19, they will not need to isolate or get tested, unless showing symptoms.
Reply
0
0
03-02-2022, 02:15 PM
I'm Miserable!
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 132
Total Cats: 10
We can all g back and forth...but here is how I see it. Doing nothing was an untenable position; hospitals could have easily overrun, and even you don't think it was super likely you are going to play it safe regardless. This is really a study in decision science and risk assessment. Also, as a communicable disease, your choice absolutely had the potential of affecting others. There were real potential affects on our economy - large numbers of people calling in sick is not good for business.
So you have to do something. Clearly many of you believe there should be "choice" and "personal responsibility". Fine. Where do you draw the line as the responsible party?
So you have to do something. Clearly many of you believe there should be "choice" and "personal responsibility". Fine. Where do you draw the line as the responsible party?
Reply
0
0
03-02-2022, 02:19 PM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
So lying to everyone for two years and it ultimately taking a variant that was vaccine resistant to run its course through everyone anyway, two years later, was okay?
In the meantime still forcing businesses to close, paying people to sit at home, and ultimately firing people from their jobs and still calling in sick (to the point where they had to reduce the quarantine period) and causing huge supply/labor shortages...
Not going to attempt my 10 challenges? I even gave you an extra credit assignment.
In the meantime still forcing businesses to close, paying people to sit at home, and ultimately firing people from their jobs and still calling in sick (to the point where they had to reduce the quarantine period) and causing huge supply/labor shortages...
Not going to attempt my 10 challenges? I even gave you an extra credit assignment.
Reply
2
2
03-02-2022, 02:32 PM
We can all g back and forth...but here is how I see it. Doing nothing was an untenable position; hospitals could have easily overrun, and even you don't think it was super likely you are going to play it safe regardless. This is really a study in decision science and risk assessment. Also, as a communicable disease, your choice absolutely had the potential of affecting others. There were real potential affects on our economy - large numbers of people calling in sick is not good for business.
So you have to do something. Clearly many of you believe there should be "choice" and "personal responsibility". Fine. Where do you draw the line as the responsible party?
So you have to do something. Clearly many of you believe there should be "choice" and "personal responsibility". Fine. Where do you draw the line as the responsible party?
Reply
0
0
03-02-2022, 02:37 PM
I'm Miserable!
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 132
Total Cats: 10
So lying to everyone for two years and it ultimately taking a variant that was vaccine resistant to run its course through everyone anyway, two years later, was okay?
In the meantime still forcing businesses to close, paying people to sit at home, and ultimately firing people from their jobs and still calling in sick (to the point where they had to reduce the quarantine period) and causing huge supply/labor shortages...
Not going to attempt my 10 challenges? I even gave you an extra credit assignment.
In the meantime still forcing businesses to close, paying people to sit at home, and ultimately firing people from their jobs and still calling in sick (to the point where they had to reduce the quarantine period) and causing huge supply/labor shortages...
Not going to attempt my 10 challenges? I even gave you an extra credit assignment.
Reply
0
0
03-02-2022, 02:42 PM
I'm Miserable!
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 132
Total Cats: 10
Yea...because no one stood to make money off of therapeutics. Prevention has always been a weak spot in the medical profession - no surprise to see it here.
Reply
0
0
03-02-2022, 02:45 PM
Junior Member
iTrader: (-1)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 421
Total Cats: 16
Your spouse was in the control group. When was she unblinded? Did she then get jabbed? If so, refer to my original comment - there is no currently followed control group. Due to that, you cannot even begin to speak on whether or not it was the vaccine, or the virus weakening that produced the resultant outcomes. That's how science would work. Braineack already answered the other question. Also check vids from Fauci and Biden.
Also, vaccines would be the primary path IF they reduced transmission. Check the rest of the world alongside the US.
Also, vaccines would be the primary path IF they reduced transmission. Check the rest of the world alongside the US.
Reply
0
0
03-02-2022, 03:08 PM
I'm Miserable!
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 132
Total Cats: 10
Your spouse was in the control group. When was she unblinded? Did she then get jabbed? If so, refer to my original comment - there is no currently followed control group. Due to that, you cannot even begin to speak on whether or not it was the vaccine, or the virus weakening that produced the resultant outcomes. That's how science would work. Braineack already answered the other question. Also check vids from Fauci and Biden.
Also, vaccines would be the primary path IF they reduced transmission. Check the rest of the world alongside the US.
Also, vaccines would be the primary path IF they reduced transmission. Check the rest of the world alongside the US.
This isn't bench science; it's human subjects work.
Reply
0
0
03-02-2022, 03:25 PM
Junior Member
iTrader: (-1)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 421
Total Cats: 16
3 years from now, 5 years from now, 10 years from now - something happens. Is there still a control group? Pretty clear to see the demonization of the unjabbed stems from the fact that they'll be the only evidence available if the vaccine is to blame.
And like you said earlier - it's about managing risk. For just about 99.9***% of people not old or have comorbidities - this thing is harmless. For those where it's not statistically harmless, this is the group that should be prioritized. After that, it is in the individuals hands. It still boggles me that they're forcing kids to take it when their risk of fatality is greater with the cold/flu - ESPECIALLY when the jab doesn't prevent spread.
"More than likely, there is a group being followed..." - What is the size of that group? Also, don't look at pfizer's own documents that show (conveniently) that the "death from all causes" between jabbed and unjabbed were ..... quite similar. Don't disclose that easily as well. "odd."
And like you said earlier - it's about managing risk. For just about 99.9***% of people not old or have comorbidities - this thing is harmless. For those where it's not statistically harmless, this is the group that should be prioritized. After that, it is in the individuals hands. It still boggles me that they're forcing kids to take it when their risk of fatality is greater with the cold/flu - ESPECIALLY when the jab doesn't prevent spread.
"More than likely, there is a group being followed..." - What is the size of that group? Also, don't look at pfizer's own documents that show (conveniently) that the "death from all causes" between jabbed and unjabbed were ..... quite similar. Don't disclose that easily as well. "odd."
Reply
0
0
03-02-2022, 03:49 PM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
I'm sorry, are we reading the same quote?
is English your second language?
The CDC gave scientifically-backed guidance that if you are fully vaccinated, you can be in contact with someone who was COVID positive without having to isolate yourself or get tested, unless you showed symptoms yourself.
What does that tell you: Your vaccination protects you from getting sick as well as protects other people from getting sick.
If "it was ALWAYS about avoiding hospitalization and death," then why would the CDC give this guidance if they knew 6-months prior to this guidance the vaccine did not prevent you from getting sick or prevent transmission COVID?
It does not say it will "HeLp". The guidance is clear: Go back to normal, no need to isolate after contact with COVID. The ONLY logical conclusion one can make from this sentence is that the vaccine prevents you from carrying COVID and spreading it to others.
That's absolutely an insult to people with more than 13 IQ points to suggest that statement "simply say[s] that vaccines will help".
TIL: go back to normal = helps a little
If someone who is fully vaccinated is exposed to someone who is positive for COVID-19, they will not need to isolate or get tested, unless showing symptoms.
The CDC gave scientifically-backed guidance that if you are fully vaccinated, you can be in contact with someone who was COVID positive without having to isolate yourself or get tested, unless you showed symptoms yourself.
What does that tell you: Your vaccination protects you from getting sick as well as protects other people from getting sick.
If "it was ALWAYS about avoiding hospitalization and death," then why would the CDC give this guidance if they knew 6-months prior to this guidance the vaccine did not prevent you from getting sick or prevent transmission COVID?
It does not say it will "HeLp". The guidance is clear: Go back to normal, no need to isolate after contact with COVID. The ONLY logical conclusion one can make from this sentence is that the vaccine prevents you from carrying COVID and spreading it to others.
That's absolutely an insult to people with more than 13 IQ points to suggest that statement "simply say[s] that vaccines will help".
TIL: go back to normal = helps a little
Reply
0
0
03-02-2022, 03:53 PM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
Bonus points: Give me the pleasure of telling me this direct quote from the director of the CDC was just telling the American public the vaccines simply "help" a little
Vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don't get sick; it's not just in the clinical trails, it's also in real world data.
Reply
0
0
