1. #31776
    Veteran hater's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    65,211
    It never will. Endemic. Forever.

  2. #31777
    Veteran hater's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    65,211
    Breaking News: Covid is here to stay. Get your vax or not. Stop worrying about who is vaxxed or not. Go outside and get some air. Or hide in your house. Either way, move on.
    Eggsactly

  3. #31778
    Believe. Dirks_Finale's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Post Count
    3,536
    Yeah, no 56 year old man has ever had joint pain or neck stiffness, must have been the vaccine!
    Sudden onset.

    And I'm assuming you are not his doctor.

  4. #31779
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    88,254
    I said it was reasonable. Why would I provide an argument that it's not? Can you not read?

    While it's not unreasonable for a COVID survivor to get vaccinated, it's unreasonable to expect them to if they have better protection already than you have as a vaccinated person who hasn't have COVID.

    You have a very serious reading comprehension problem. Those last three words are the fuel for all debates, not just this one. Everyone should do Y as long as Y is within reason. Everyone should do what's within reason then? Not really. Just because it's reasonable to get it doesn't mean they should get it.
    you said its what fuels all debates. all would include this one. yet you cant even provide an argument for the other side of the "debate"

    doesnt sound like much of a debate

    as for the bolded, why is that unreasonable? hence the second part of my question, what's the burden on somebody to get the vaccine, even if they've already been infected? why is it unreasonable to ask that everybody take reasonable steps to get the most protection (for themselves, and by extension, the public)? and if you dont think vaccination is a reasonable step, explain why not

  5. #31780
    I want some NASTY monosylab1k's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    15,222
    Sudden onset.

    And I'm assuming you are not his doctor.
    AMAZING, the first 56 year old man to have zero joint issues, until that darn vaccine!

  6. #31781
    Believe. Dirks_Finale's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Post Count
    3,536
    you said its what fuels all debates. all would include this one. yet you cant even provide an argument for the other side of the "debate"

    doesnt sound like much of a debate

    as for the bolded, why is that unreasonable? hence the second part of my question, what's the burden on somebody to get the vaccine, even if they've already been infected? why is it unreasonable to ask that everybody take reasonable steps to get the most protection (for themselves, and by extension, the public)? and if you dont think vaccination is a reasonable step, explain why not
    Do you think maybe there should be certain exemptions? Like health care workers who went into the belly of the beast every day while everyone was ordering amazon groceries and hiding under their beds? I mean the odds of these people having not already being infected by the virus are very low.

    I still say talk to your doctor. Whether you have hang ups or not, talk to your doctor - not Joe Biden, Don Lemon or anyone else unqualified to advise you on medicine and your body.

    I think mostly everybody here has been vaxxed. We all think we did the right thing, but hey, maybe we are wrong and we all grow a tail next year and the unvaxxed turn out to be the smart ones.

  7. #31782
    Believe. Dirks_Finale's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Post Count
    3,536
    AMAZING, the first 56 year old man to have zero joint issues, until that darn vaccine!
    Could be coincidental. But if you got the vax and starting having acute, lingering issues the very next day then I think you would likely have your su ions as well.

  8. #31783
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    88,254
    Do you think maybe there should be certain exemptions? Like health care workers who went into the belly of the beast every day while everyone was ordering amazon groceries and hiding under their beds? I mean the odds of these people having not already being infected by the virus are very low.
    no. health care workers should be held to the highest standard of being as protected as possible (short of intentionally getting themselves infected)

    I still say talk to your doctor. Whether you have hang ups or not, talk to your doctor - not Joe Biden, Don Lemon or anyone else unqualified to advise you on medicine and your body.
    sure. but anti-vaxxers dont. they treat facebook as their doctor.

    I think mostly everybody here has been vaxxed. We all think we did the right thing, but hey, maybe we are wrong and we all grow a tail next year and the unvaxxed turn out to be the smart ones.
    no. our vaccination rate sucks

  9. #31784
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    40,884
    no. health care workers should be held to the highest standard of being as protected as possible (short of intentionally getting themselves infected)
    If they already had covid, they are protected. More so than vaccinated people.

  10. #31785
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    88,254
    If they already had covid, they are protected. More so than vaccinated people.
    we've been over this. like, today. why do you have to keep pretending that this is a contested point?

    none. best he could have done was appropriately social distance and avoid anti-maskers such as himself

    this isn't addressing anything i've said though. would rand getting a vaccine now on top of his covid provide further protection? yes or no.
    they can get even more protection by getting the jabs

  11. #31786
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    88,254
    darrin is just recycling discussions from 3 weeks ago

    my argument isnt weak because both of the following are true:

    - somebody who is unvaxxed without natural immunity is at more risk than somebody who is vaxxed without natural immunity

    and

    - somebody who is unvaxxed with natural immunity is at more risk than somebody who is vaxxed with natural immunity

    getting a vaccination doesnt present a significant risk to anybody or the people around them (minus extreme fringe cases which i already pointed out in an earlier post). trying to get natural immunity absolutely does

    think its perfectly fair to want health workers who are doing what they reasonably can to mitigate harm to the people they're treating

  12. #31787
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    40,884
    "Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before."

    -Cleveland Clinic

  13. #31788
    I want some NASTY monosylab1k's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    15,222
    Could be coincidental.
    OH COULD IT?????!?!?! COULD IT BE???!!!!

  14. #31789
    Veteran hater's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    65,211
    If they already had covid, they are protected. More so than vaccinated people.


    Yup

    Follow da science

  15. #31790
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    88,254
    "Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before."

    -Cleveland Clinic
    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....01.21258176v3


  16. #31791
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    88,254

  17. #31792
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    137,036
    "Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before."

    -Cleveland Clinic
    When did that study end?

  18. #31793
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    137,036
    "Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before."

    -Cleveland Clinic
    So your claim is CC should not have gotten vaccinated.

    True?

  19. #31794
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    89,112
    you said its what fuels all debates. all would include this one. yet you cant even provide an argument for the other side of the "debate"

    doesnt sound like much of a debate

    as for the bolded, why is that unreasonable? hence the second part of my question, what's the burden on somebody to get the vaccine, even if they've already been infected? why is it unreasonable to ask that everybody take reasonable steps to get the most protection (for themselves, and by extension, the public)? and if you dont think vaccination is a reasonable step, explain why not
    What's your goal? If you just want this nebulous "as protected as you can be" then that's not your business. If it's to "avoid carrying it to others" then you're more likely to do that since your protection is lower than theirs. You're asking a faster runner to get even faster even though he's the fastest person in the race. So would it be unreasonable to ask you to stay home and not visit anyone? If not, why not? Don't you want the most protection for others? Sure you can be careful, but you could be even more careful by not going out around people.

  20. #31795
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    148,392
    Less than 1% is really not a risk to many tbqh.
    Well, let's put it in numbers. US population: 330 million, 1% of that: 3.3 million. That's a lot of people.

    Especially since the vaccine brings down that number considerably, at much, much less than 1% risk to you.

    Its probably riskier to own a motorcycle or do rock climbing or sky diving tbqh

    Some ppl might prefer the natural immunity to get the benefit of better.protection

    Follow da science thang dawg
    If you're following the science, then you're vaccinated. I am too.

  21. #31796
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    89,112
    "Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before."

    -Cleveland Clinic
    It doesn't matter if it's not been peer reviewed for sake of discussion.

    There's a difference between "prioritized" and "bypassed". The CC isn't saying vaccines can be ignored, they are saying give the most vulnerable the vaccine first. This is why I think people who have 92% efficacy protection should not be pressured to go to 95% as if there's no risk involved, by people who are 87% protected. I think the main thrust on this vaccine push is to have a record of everyone being vaccinated, without concern for natural immunity because of the logistics of tracking the latter. I don't think it has anything to do with actually protecting that individual per se, nor the public, but in putting forth a control scheme that they can say they have actually controlled instead of just hoped about.

    Personally I would get vaccinated even if I had the virus however I don't see the danger.

    Would people be OK with natural immunity folks having never gotten COVID but gotten vaccinated, and having a lower protection? Seems so.

  22. #31797
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    88,254
    What's your goal? If you just want this nebulous "as protected as you can be" then that's not your business.
    it's everybody's business

    If it's to "avoid carrying it to others" then you're more likely to do that since your protection is lower than theirs.
    if there is a way to collectively make us more protected in a way that doesnt require people to risk their health by intentionally getting infected, we should do that

    You're asking a faster runner to get even faster even though he's the fastest person in the race. So would it be unreasonable to ask you to stay home and not visit anyone? If not, why not? Don't you want the most protection for others? Sure you can be careful, but you could be even more careful by not going out around people.
    its not a zero sum game. the more collective protection we have, the better. if there are people not doing all they can (within reason), then them, honestly

  23. #31798
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    148,392
    There's a difference between "prioritized" and "bypassed". The CC isn't saying vaccines can be ignored, they are saying give the most vulnerable the vaccine first.
    Exactly, which makes Darrin's point moot as well. Doctors are not recommending against vaccinating previously infected individuals. The reality is that outside the US vaccines are still hard to come by, and should be prioritized to those that have no protection at all.

  24. #31799
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    88,254
    It doesn't matter if it's not been peer reviewed for sake of discussion.

    There's a difference between "prioritized" and "bypassed". The CC isn't saying vaccines can be ignored, they are saying give the most vulnerable the vaccine first. This is why I think people who have 92% efficacy protection should not be pressured to go to 95% as if there's no risk involved, by people who are 87% protected. I think the main thrust on this vaccine push is to have a record of everyone being vaccinated, without concern for natural immunity because of the logistics of tracking the latter. I don't think it has anything to do with actually protecting that individual per se, nor the public, but in putting forth a control scheme that they can say they have actually controlled instead of just hoped about.

    Personally I would get vaccinated even if I had the virus however I don't see the danger.

    Would people be OK with natural immunity folks having never gotten COVID but gotten vaccinated, and having a lower protection? Seems so.
    great so you agree with my position in all this

  25. #31800
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    148,392
    And peer review is an integral part of giving research any credibility, tbh... anybody can publish, not everybody can get past the peer review...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •