Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,609
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    NH8550
    Newest Member
    NH8550
    Joined

Spring Banter


Baroclinic Zone
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, dendrite said:

6 months was the trial study. It may provide protection for 6-12 months or more. mRNA isn't exactly new either...maybe to this level, but it's been around for decades.

I still think everyone should have the right to get it or not, but those who choose "no" are going to have to live with the shut downs and restrictions when you have cases like MI where hospitals are getting overburdened again. It's easy to cry about not being able to dine in to eat a burger or watch a move in a theater when you're not a healthcare worker with sick patients gasping for air piling up in the lobby

See my prior posts. I acknowledged this. The technology may have been around for decades, but there's no safety data on long term risk in hundreds of millions of people. While I'm not overly concerned with prime/boost regimen, with annual booster, if it is deemed the vaccine has <12 month protective immunity, then they need to understand why, not just keep jabbing people. As a scientist I am sure they are already looking into this should immunity be somewhat short lived.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Whineminster said:

huh?  Say you need 2-days off every 6 months due to the vaccine cuz you're feel crappy after getting it.  That's 4 days a year.  Most people only get 5 sick days a year. And who the hell says the other option is death??? 99.8% of people live.  Especially younger people such as myself.  Our only hope is that it becomes less deadly over time, like most flu-years.  TDAP lasts like 5 years.  Hep B vax lasts a lifetime.  

Nah...you're redrafting what an  "unattended covid infection" implies in order to bring it down and make it comparable. 

Unattended covid has a much higher risk for serious injury or worse then being inconvenienced for 4 days...   You alleviating risk, your alleviating chances ( significantly) with 2 to 4 days  of vaccine and who the fudge ever said it only last for only 6 months anyway - I'm getting conflicting reports there everywhere.

that sounds like bust stop mill work to me... I have heard no formal science report to substantiates that much limit on efficacy in the absolute sense ...  But, for the sake of discussion - the average run in with c-19 flu is in far worse that 4 days out of the total year of softer inconvenience.

 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, SJonesWX said:

re: bolded text: since when is being unhealthy immoral? who came up with that "fact"?

Seems evidentially nested in the definitions for the word ..  There's not semantic room here like you I suspect you are after - you are not talking to an idiot .... Any act that flouts potential consequence fits this general conception. 

im•mor•al ĭ-môr′əl, -mŏr′-

adj.

Contrary to established moral principles.

Not moral; not conforming to or consistent with the moral law; unprincipled; dissolute; vicious; licentious.

Contrary to good order or public welfare; inimical to the rights or common interests of others: a legal and commercial sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BuffaloWeather said:

Not exactly

Here's Why COVID-19 Is Much Worse Than the Flu

There are many articles from 2017, 2018, and 2019 of hospitals getting near or beyond capacity and setting up tents outside. Sorry, I know that busts the narrative.

People truly think hospitals are designed to run at 50% capacity normally, I guess. No teaching them otherwise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone is going to have the chance to get the vaccine here in the coming months.

My deal is... for those who don’t get it, should we be locking down again when cases rise or spike again because enough people didn’t get the vaccine? What kind of message does that send?

The appetite of people who have received the vaccine to continue on the lockdown hamster wheel is going to be very low 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Quixotic1 said:

I’m talking about your original missive about a sinner disease.  Please tell me that was tongue in cheek.

OH wholeheartedly

It's on me though... droll and context smearing is like 10-10-10 in the garden bed of "Facebook Fights" ( showcased program around Va Beach radio that's hilarious - ) ...why should we be any different in here. 

Like ALL the other aspects that missive ham-fisted discussed in way more detail... if someone has genetic comorbidities ...that's preposterous to think they are at fault.

If we really want to get into the empathy of it...some people have "unhealthy" life-style habits because they are mentally hurting and its viced ... you know,  sneaky uncles, or just blurred boundaries in an enmeshed family upbringing, or a vague or badly constructed history in the regard in general, and they end up with weird complexes as adults... Jesus- just give me cigarettes and a coffee house poetry reading and leave me alone... That sort of thing...

In reality, it's just an infection - and it's just science telling us statistics. It's up to those to understand the stats and then figure out what they wanna do with the information, and assholes like me trying to be cutesy droll and funny ... well, not always going to land on folks as funny.   sorry heh

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, TauntonBlizzard2013 said:

Everyone is going to have the chance to get the vaccine here in the coming months.

My deal is... for those who don’t get it, should we be locking down again when cases rise or spike again because enough people didn’t get the vaccine? What kind of message does that send?

The appetite of people who have received the vaccine to continue on the lockdown hamster wheel is going to be very low 

vaccinated or not, I'm more concerned about case #'s and the how some will continue to use them as evidence either the vaccines don't work, are not effective enough, not enough herd immunity, etc to further the masks, mandates, control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lava Rock said:

vaccinated or not, I'm more concerned about case #'s and the how some will continue to use them as evidence either the vaccines don't work, are not effective enough, not enough herd immunity, etc to further the masks, mandates, control.

I’ve grown pretty pessimistic on this in the last like 10-14 days. I’m concerned we aren’t going to get away from cases numbers and positives and mass testing. 

i mean we have school districts down here that return a few positives and they immediately transition to remote for a week or two. This is after prioritizing teachers and school staff for vaccines. So if you aren’t going to change how you operate after the vaccines, what are we really doing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, TauntonBlizzard2013 said:

Everyone is going to have the chance to get the vaccine here in the coming months.

My deal is... for those who don’t get it, should we be locking down again when cases rise or spike again because enough people didn’t get the vaccine? What kind of message does that send?

The appetite of people who have received the vaccine to continue on the lockdown hamster wheel is going to be very low 

Very, very few of the people refusing to get the vaccine want to stay locked down. I assure you there is zero appetite for masks and lockdowns from that side. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, TauntonBlizzard2013 said:

I’ve grown pretty pessimistic on this in the last like 10-14 days. I’m concerned we aren’t going to get away from cases numbers and positives and mass testing. 

i mean we have school districts down here that return a few positives and they immediately transition to remote for a week or two. This is after prioritizing teachers and school staff for vaccines. So if you aren’t going to change how you operate after the vaccines, what are we really doing?

good question.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DotRat_Wx said:

This and streaming is why I'm a big investor in Disney. The streaming numbers are huge and parks are really just a drop in the bucket. All around great stock. Covers stay at home and reopening. 

Does Disney actually move that much to make it a worthwhile investment?

Does it pay a dividend?

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...