Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,617
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    RyRyB
    Newest Member
    RyRyB
    Joined

Fall Banter and General Discussion


Baroclinic Zone
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, WhitinsvilleWX said:

And I’m not sure how 4 oz is a danger and 3 isn’t. That’s the kind of stupid shit that pisses people off. Kinda like a mask mandates to outside when you 1000 feet away from another human. Ridiculous stuff like that make people mad and not want to do the stuff that does make some sense.

Government one-size-fits-all broad brush mandates tend to work like that. Everyone ends up unhappy with the generic committee solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, WhitinsvilleWX said:

Helluva choice, huh??

 

It is but I'd gladly take the vaccine over contracting the virus.

2 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

#StayHomeStaySafe

We know you are up in NH.

Meanwhile I'm out an about everyday interacting with my clients, wearing a mask when I'm around them, but going about my day to day job.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

It's because they are giving up something for doing that. Dogs are excellent explosive detectors, but they can't see if you hide a non-metal knife in your pocket like a body scanner can. I agree it's pretty silly to waste time searching for non-metal weapons, but that's the game.

 

I do agree about the non metal stuff. Especially since the plastic is cheap Chinese crap anyways. Can snap it with my wrist. :lol: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Baroclinic Zone said:

It is but I'd gladly take the vaccine over contracting the virus.

We know you are up in NH.

Meanwhile I'm out an about everyday interacting with my clients, wearing a mask when I'm around them, but going about my day to day job.

I don’t understand what some are arguing. Open up, but don’t take the vaccine because of risks? 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Baroclinic Zone said:

It is but I'd gladly take the vaccine over contracting the virus.

We know you are up in NH.

Meanwhile I'm out an about everyday interacting with my clients, wearing a mask when I'm around them, but going about my day to day job.

I am fortunate that I can hide out from the virus in style. That's why I am not being a massive hypocrite demanding people who have to work with customers every day shut themselves down and destroy their livelihoods to make me feel even better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CoastalWx said:

I don’t understand what some are arguing. Open up, but don’t take the vaccine because of risks? 

I think anyone who wants the vaccine should be able to take it, but once you take it the restrictions need to be lifted. That's the tradeoff. The virus is very, very low risk to most people. Asking them to take a vaccine requires something in exchange, IMO. That's having their old freedoms back.

I also don't think shaming people for being scared of this rushed vaccine and calling them idiots is fair either. There are reasons to be wary about how this has been developed and will be rolled out. The damn liberal governor of NY and VP-elect are saying the same thing. It's not just a fringe weirdo viewpoint.

I personally would take the vaccine if offered to me. If only to calm a few of the older folks in my sphere who are very scared of the virus. I don't expect it will be offered to me for a long while, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PhineasC said:

I think anyone who wants the vaccine should be able to take it, but once you take it the restrictions need to be lifted. That's the tradeoff. The virus is very, very low risk to most people. Asking them to take a vaccine requires something in exchange, IMO. That's having their old freedoms back.

I also don't think shaming people for being scared of this rushed vaccine and calling them idiots is fair either. There are reasons to be wary about how this has been developed and will be rolled out. The damn liberal governor of NY and VP-elect are saying the same thing. It's not just a fringe weirdo viewpoint.

I personally would take the vaccine if offered to me. If only to calm a few of the older folks in my sphere who are very scared of the virus. I don't expect it will be offered to me for a long while, however.

I think it’s fine to be wary. I certainly would like to wait and see as well. As far as restrictions, you’ll have to figure out a way to prove people have it. Or just say that after a certain percentage of people have it, then lift restrictions?

For me, it’s the family in my life and not wanting to get side effects for 6+ months if I do get it. A local met is actually talking about this after he got it in the spring. All set with that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think alot of people could be completely immune to it through t-cell immunity. I have heard countless stories from friends/family of someone testing positive/symptomatic with it but nobody else getting in the house. 

English study suggests T cells could be sufficient to protect from COVID-19

The study on nearly 3,000 people, conducted by Oxford Immunotec and Public Health England (PHE), found that no participants with a high T cell response developed symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection when researchers followed up with them.

That compares to 20 confirmed infections among participants who saw low T cell responses.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-britain-tcell-idUSKBN27Q001

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CoastalWx said:

I think it’s fine to be wary. I certainly would like to wait and see as well. As far as restrictions, you’ll have to figure out a way to prove people have it. Or just say that after a certain percentage of people have it, then lift restrictions?

For me, it’s the family in my life and not wanting to get side effects for 6+ months if I do get it. A local met is actually talking about this after he got it in the spring. All set with that. 

I think a certain amount of time after it has been available to everyone is the fairest route. Tracking who has taken it is a train wreck. For the sake of argument, lets say it is finally available to everyone in March (I assume high risk will have already had the option to take it before this), by June, you should have no restrictions at all. If you are still scared of the virus months later, then you can shelter away or decide to take the vaccine. If you don't take the vaccine, that's your problem, not society's.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

I think it’s fine to be wary. I certainly would like to wait and see as well. As far as restrictions, you’ll have to figure out a way to prove people have it. Or just say that after a certain percentage of people have it, then lift restrictions?

For me, it’s the family in my life and not wanting to get side effects for 6+ months if I do get it. A local met is actually talking about this after he got it in the spring. All set with that. 

I am someone who has always been fine with a national ID card. Probably just because my job means the Feds already know everything about me, and I already carry a Federal ID anyway. I would be fine with that ID having info about my vaccination status, if I so choose.

But I know that isn't the answer for the vast majority of people and would lead to terrible govt overreach. I think what you and will said about it being based on a timeline and availability widely is the only way to handle this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ORH_wxman said:

I think a certain amount of time after it has been available to everyone is the fairest route. Tracking who has taken it is a train wreck. For the sake of argument, lets say it is finally available to everyone in March (I assume high risk will have already had the option to take it before this), by June, you should have no restrictions at all. If you are still scared of the virus months later, then you can shelter away or decide to take the vaccine. If you don't take the vaccine, that's your problem, not society's.

I am just not convinced that mother hen govt is simply going to let people "make it their own problem" if they don't take the vaccine. Does that sound like something Cuomo, Newsom, or Whitmer would say? LOL well, maybe Cuomo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PhineasC said:

I am just not convinced that mother hen govt is simply going to let people "make it their own problem" if they don't take the vaccine. Does that sound like something Cuomo, Newsom, or Whitmer would say? LOL well, maybe Cuomo.

This is getting too political for here.......but I mean, maybe they would? These people are still going to be driven by public sentiment at the end of the day. Some people will probably want to stay in lockdown mode, but I think you will see the groundswell start to occur in the opposite direction after a certain amount of time has passed with the vaccine widely available. You're also going to have cases plummeting because of this. That's going to be a very hard tide to fight and most politicians care about one thing....their jobs.

The only difficulty I can foresee with the lifting of restrictions is if the vaccine isn't available to enough people yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ORH_wxman said:

This is getting too political for here.......but I mean, maybe they would? These people are still going to be driven by public sentiment at the end of the day. Some people will probably want to stay in lockdown mode, but I think you will see the groundswell start to occur in the opposite direction after a certain amount of time has passed with the vaccine widely available. You're also going to have cases plummeting because of this. That's going to be a very hard tide to fight and most politicians care about one thing....their jobs.

The only difficulty I can foresee with the lifting of restrictions is if the vaccine isn't available to enough people yet.

We don't need to debate it here. I am a cynic and a bit of a conspiracy theorist when it comes to govt power. We will see what happens. Fingers crossed I am wrong for everyone's sake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

We don't need to debate it here. I am a cynic and a bit of a conspiracy theorist when it comes to govt power. We will see what happens. Fingers crossed I am wrong for everyone's sake.

I’m right there with you. 
I subscribe to the Ronald Reagan adage that the scariest words in the English language are “ I’m from the government and we’re just here to help you”.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

I think a certain amount of time after it has been available to everyone is the fairest route. Tracking who has taken it is a train wreck. For the sake of argument, lets say it is finally available to everyone in March (I assume high risk will have already had the option to take it before this), by June, you should have no restrictions at all. If you are still scared of the virus months later, then you can shelter away or decide to take the vaccine. If you don't take the vaccine, that's your problem, not society's.

I agree with the certain amount of time passed. In theory it makes sense, but I wonder if that is too vague for the govt? But yeah, the pressure will mount after a certain amount of time passes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CoastalWx said:

I agree with the certain amount of time passed. In theory it makes sense, but I wonder if that is too vague for the govt? But yeah, the pressure will mount after a certain amount of time passes.

I think the governors that have the mandates in place will have to see a substantial drop in positives before anything is removed. Not sure how substantial will be defined. 
I know I keep beating a dead horse here, but until they drop the cycle number that’s considered positive, it will last longer that it needs too. Even Fauci says it’s too high, but it hasn’t gained any traction to lower the number to something sensible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, WhitinsvilleWX said:

I think the governors that have the mandates in place will have to see a substantial drop in positives before anything is removed. Not sure how substantial will be defined. 
I know I keep beating a dead horse here, but until they drop the cycle number that’s considered positive, it will last longer that it needs too. Even Fauci says it’s too high, but it hasn’t gained any traction to lower the number to something sensible.

what is the Ct #?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, WhitinsvilleWX said:

I think you guys are way too optimistic on when the restrictions go away. If I had to bet it in Vegas, I’d take spring 2022 for the win, Alex. (RIP)

way too far out if there's a billion doses by end of next year-plus cases will drop off this spring as they did last spring as people move outside for activities....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...