Coronavirus and the Washington Capitals Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.

AussieCapsFan

Registered User
Apr 30, 2017
2,990
2,638
Gold Coast
Nobody mentioned it unless it was that ONE guy whose posts were deleted. The only discussion of kids that predates you and others protesting against vaccinating kids right now was CCR posting a link to Fauci saying approval for children could come in the fall. That's not anyone here putting pressure on you to vaccinate your kids now.

Actually I mentioned it as well, but my post got deleted - no idea why since it wasn't at all contentious. I merely said I thought Ridley was the kind of parent who genuinely cares about his children and I would do exactly the same (wait a while before deciding to have my kids vaccinated).

The difference is I live in Australia and we have very, very few cases. So there isn't the same 'urgency' to vaccinate as there might be in America.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ridley Simon

Calicaps

NFA
Aug 3, 2006
21,816
14,097
Almost Canada
Actually I mentioned it as well, but my post got deleted - no idea why since it wasn't at all contentious. I merely said I thought Ridley was the kind of parent who genuinely cares about his children and I would do exactly the same (wait a while before deciding to have my kids vaccinated).

The difference is I live in Australia and we have very, very few cases. So there isn't the same 'urgency' to vaccinate as there might be in America.
Pro tip... If you quote a post that gets deleted, your post will too. That's probably what happened.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AussieCapsFan

Calicaps

NFA
Aug 3, 2006
21,816
14,097
Almost Canada
I understand.

Perhaps then you can understand the abject fear of creating a situation that hurts your children. We probably unknowingly do that daily anyway, sadly (so many odd places you can damage your kids), so knowingly doing so (even if such a small probability) is paralyzing.

I fully respect your comments.

and I’m sorry if that wasn’t apparent beforehand
Dude, I make my dogs nuts worrying about them. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ridley Simon

CapitalsCupReality

It’s Go Time!!
Feb 27, 2002
64,390
19,096
Actually I mentioned it as well, but my post got deleted - no idea why since it wasn't at all contentious. I merely said I thought Ridley was the kind of parent who genuinely cares about his children and I would do exactly the same (wait a while before deciding to have my kids vaccinated).

The difference is I live in Australia and we have very, very few cases. So there isn't the same 'urgency' to vaccinate as there might be in America.

Melbourne says hi!
 

kicksavedave

I'm just here for the memes and gifs.
Sponsor
Apr 29, 2009
10,615
13,261
Fallbrook, CA
www.tiasarms.org
Because nobody I saw in this thread was telling him he had to vaccinate his kids without adequate testing the vaccine on kids. He says others were saying that but I've not seen the posts.

So when some arguments about "long term effects" and "new tech" and "rushed to approval" start coming out in the discussion, which have nothing to do with giving it to kids right now, it seems like it's coming from the usual antivax FUD circles, even if he's not antivax.

That's what I'm having a problem with. We don't need to make a decision on vaccinating kids right now.

This seems like a big misunderstanding fueled by fear and disinformation.

If it caused confusion, I should probably clarify my statements earlier about what I'm looking for... when I said I was concerned about long term effects which haven't been studied yet, I probably should have said what I'm really concerned about which is long term effectiveness (vs "effects"). I have very little concern that taking one of the three or four available Covid vax's is going to leave me or my son with some unforeseen debilitating issue because we "rushed" this through - I believe vaccinations are generally safe with adverse effects in a reasonably small percentage of cases, so that's not really a fear of mine. What I'm really more concerned with is, which one will work best, have more effect on the new variants, and also I'd like more information about the new variants which are so new, there's limited information about their relationship to the vaccines despite some early claims that they should still work.

As an example, I read where the new variants are now known to re-infect people who have already had Covid and supposedly got antibodies, in some cases the new strain infected them severely, as in ICU. This suggests that immunity, like the seasonal flu, may be strain/variant dependent, and one vaccine may just not cover us thoroughly. Also, because these were in fact rushed, I know for a fact that there was a thought process of "find anything that will work" and not necessarily having the benefit of a "what will work best" approach - Thats the nature of a pandemic, the urgency to deliver anything that will help, overrides the desire to develop the perfect solution. I want more data about the available vaccines, with respect to variants, and with respect to what is in development that may work better than what is available right now. And given that my me and my family are not exactly first in line to get vaccinated while we still have limited supply, my desire for more information is not exactly causing me to pass on an offer to take what is out there right now, so CCR can just skip the "50% is better than 0%" argument, its not relevant here.

And not to pull the "I'm an expert card" here because I'm just a dumbass IT guy, but I work for the one of the largest virology pharma's in the world, the maker of Remdesivir (Veklury), so I do have access to -some- inside information that leads me to believe that better options may be available in a while vs what is available right now.
 

CapitalsCupReality

It’s Go Time!!
Feb 27, 2002
64,390
19,096
Oh, you mean the city of 5 million people that's gone into a 5 day lockdown because there are currently 16 people who have tested positive? And most of them are in hotel quarantine. Yeah, it's out of control here. Just absolutely running rampant....

those crazy governments...
 

CapitalsCupReality

It’s Go Time!!
Feb 27, 2002
64,390
19,096
If it caused confusion, I should probably clarify my statements earlier about what I'm looking for... when I said I was concerned about long term effects which haven't been studied yet, I probably should have said what I'm really concerned about which is long term effectiveness (vs "effects"). I have very little concern that taking one of the three or four available Covid vax's is going to leave me or my son with some unforeseen debilitating issue because we "rushed" this through - I believe vaccinations are generally safe with adverse effects in a reasonably small percentage of cases, so that's not really a fear of mine. What I'm really more concerned with is, which one will work best, have more effect on the new variants, and also I'd like more information about the new variants which are so new, there's limited information about their relationship to the vaccines despite some early claims that they should still work.

As an example, I read where the new variants are now known to re-infect people who have already had Covid and supposedly got antibodies, in some cases the new strain infected them severely, as in ICU. This suggests that immunity, like the seasonal flu, may be strain/variant dependent, and one vaccine may just not cover us thoroughly. Also, because these were in fact rushed, I know for a fact that there was a thought process of "find anything that will work" and not necessarily having the benefit of a "what will work best" approach - Thats the nature of a pandemic, the urgency to deliver anything that will help, overrides the desire to develop the perfect solution. I want more data about the available vaccines, with respect to variants, and with respect to what is in development that may work better than what is available right now. And given that my me and my family are not exactly first in line to get vaccinated while we still have limited supply, my desire for more information is not exactly causing me to pass on an offer to take what is out there right now, so CCR can just skip the "50% is better than 0%" argument, its not relevant here.

And not to pull the "I'm an expert card" here because I'm just a dumbass IT guy, but I work for the one of the largest virology pharma's in the world, the maker of Remdesivir (Veklury), so I do have access to -some- inside information that leads me to believe that better options may be available in a while vs what is available right now.

dave this whole discussion wasn’t about “right now”, but way to show you really followed along bro. It was about when it becomes available for kids.

so yeah if the vaccine is only 50% effective (random #) it’s still better than 0 until we have better options.
 

g00n

Retired Global Mod
Nov 22, 2007
30,433
14,292
If it caused confusion, I should probably clarify my statements earlier about what I'm looking for... when I said I was concerned about long term effects which haven't been studied yet, I probably should have said what I'm really concerned about which is long term effectiveness (vs "effects"). I have very little concern that taking one of the three or four available Covid vax's is going to leave me or my son with some unforeseen debilitating issue because we "rushed" this through - I believe vaccinations are generally safe with adverse effects in a reasonably small percentage of cases, so that's not really a fear of mine. What I'm really more concerned with is, which one will work best, have more effect on the new variants, and also I'd like more information about the new variants which are so new, there's limited information about their relationship to the vaccines despite some early claims that they should still work.

As an example, I read where the new variants are now known to re-infect people who have already had Covid and supposedly got antibodies, in some cases the new strain infected them severely, as in ICU. This suggests that immunity, like the seasonal flu, may be strain/variant dependent, and one vaccine may just not cover us thoroughly. Also, because these were in fact rushed, I know for a fact that there was a thought process of "find anything that will work" and not necessarily having the benefit of a "what will work best" approach - Thats the nature of a pandemic, the urgency to deliver anything that will help, overrides the desire to develop the perfect solution. I want more data about the available vaccines, with respect to variants, and with respect to what is in development that may work better than what is available right now. And given that my me and my family are not exactly first in line to get vaccinated while we still have limited supply, my desire for more information is not exactly causing me to pass on an offer to take what is out there right now, so CCR can just skip the "50% is better than 0%" argument, its not relevant here.

And not to pull the "I'm an expert card" here because I'm just a dumbass IT guy, but I work for the one of the largest virology pharma's in the world, the maker of Remdesivir (Veklury), so I do have access to -some- inside information that leads me to believe that better options may be available in a while vs what is available right now.

Can you post the source for the bold part?
 

Jacoby4HOF66

Pull my finger
Mar 13, 2009
30,522
7,726
The important thing to remember in regards to vaccines is if it’s 25% effective, like some flu vaccines are, that 25% can help ensure if you do get COVID that your symptoms will be mild compared to getting COVID without.
 

Jacoby4HOF66

Pull my finger
Mar 13, 2009
30,522
7,726
I do find it interesting that when COVID started it was taboo to call it the Wuhan or China virus but now referring to variants as the UK variant or South African variant is perfectly fine. A nice example of the political contradictions I mentioned earlier that spin us up.
 

caps4cup

Dynasty
Dec 31, 2010
6,104
1,264
I do find it interesting that when COVID started it was taboo to call it the Wuhan or China virus but now referring to variants as the UK variant or South African variant is perfectly fine. A nice example of the political contradictions I mentioned earlier that spin us up.
Well that’s because only one side has the cancel culture mob destroying everything in its path... and it’s not about what’s right/wrong, it’s about pushing their political agenda.
 

kicksavedave

I'm just here for the memes and gifs.
Sponsor
Apr 29, 2009
10,615
13,261
Fallbrook, CA
www.tiasarms.org
dave this whole discussion wasn’t about “right now”, but way to show you really followed along bro. It was about when it becomes available for kids.

so yeah if the vaccine is only 50% effective (random #) it’s still better than 0 until we have better options.

Three things: Don't 'bro' me, it makes you sound like a punk. Two, this "WHOLE" conversation is not about one very limited topic, it has facets which I don't recall anyone appointing you the arbiter of.

Three, if you wanted to prove that you weren't paying attention, then ignoring the several times I mention there being three, soon to be more, vaccine choices, and wanting to compare them, would be a good way. So 50% vs 0% isn't relevant, because that's not the question, and its also disputable that its better than nothing, if a better option is around the corner but stacking vaccines isn's shown to work. The question is, 85%, 90%, 95%, one shot, two shots, longer term effectiveness re: reinfection, and variant/strain effectiveness. We're likely not going to be given the option to stack all the vaccines on top of each other, so choosing the first one we're offered may not be the best choice. So the question may be 80% in 3 months, or 98% in 6 months, its a fair question even if you don't understand it. And again, as already mentioned, I'm fine with self lockdown until we have more clarity, so spare me any thing about me putting society at risk by wanting more information before making a critical decision.

I'm perfectly fine with you going out and getting the very first offering you can. Not sure why you are getting so cranky about me wanting more information to choose between the several options we have. As you have said before, let it go.
 

g00n

Retired Global Mod
Nov 22, 2007
30,433
14,292
I do find it interesting that when COVID started it was taboo to call it the Wuhan or China virus but now referring to variants as the UK variant or South African variant is perfectly fine. A nice example of the political contradictions I mentioned earlier that spin us up.

This is not even close to the same thing. It was being called the "china virus" in an attempt to deflect any responsibility at home and create a xenophobic attitude toward the whole thing. People were even claiming it was made in a lab or intentionally released (including in these threads). The variant naming is simply for identifying the strains by the regions they came from and there is no difference in treatment from any political side or the media (meaning there's no globally accepted and medically correct name the rest of the world is using but one party/media source is not).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: kicksavedave

Ridley Simon

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
18,128
9,067
Marin County — SF Bay Area, CA
Three things: Don't 'bro' me, it makes you sound like a punk. Two, this "WHOLE" conversation is not about one very limited topic, it has facets which I don't recall anyone appointing you the arbiter of.

Three, if you wanted to prove that you weren't paying attention, then ignoring the several times I mention there being three, soon to be more, vaccine choices, and wanting to compare them, would be a good way. So 50% vs 0% isn't relevant, because that's not the question, and its also disputable that its better than nothing, if a better option is around the corner but stacking vaccines isn's shown to work. The question is, 85%, 90%, 95%, one shot, two shots, longer term effectiveness re: reinfection, and variant/strain effectiveness. We're likely not going to be given the option to stack all the vaccines on top of each other, so choosing the first one we're offered may not be the best choice. So the question may be 80% in 3 months, or 98% in 6 months, its a fair question even if you don't understand it. And again, as already mentioned, I'm fine with self lockdown until we have more clarity, so spare me any thing about me putting society at risk by wanting more information before making a critical decision.

I'm perfectly fine with you going out and getting the very first offering you can. Not sure why you are getting so cranky about me wanting more information to choose between the several options we have. As you have said before, let it go.
I do find the “vaccine stacking” part of all of this as very interesting. Just another wrinkle to it all.
 

kicksavedave

I'm just here for the memes and gifs.
Sponsor
Apr 29, 2009
10,615
13,261
Fallbrook, CA
www.tiasarms.org
I do find it interesting that when COVID started it was taboo to call it the Wuhan or China virus but now referring to variants as the UK variant or South African variant is perfectly fine. A nice example of the political contradictions I mentioned earlier that spin us up.

Honest question: Is the "South African" variant being used as a derogatory term, or attached to conspiracy theories about its origin there, or is the SA government involved in an attempt to hide information about its discovery there? Is anything like "Kung flu" being tagged by, say, POTUS, to the SA variant?

Some of these things are not like the other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: g00n

g00n

Retired Global Mod
Nov 22, 2007
30,433
14,292
You can google "reinfected with covid" and get more information. Here's one example:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/02/13/reinfection-south-africa-variant/

I know how to google but I wanted to see exactly what article you were talking about and whether your conclusions could be drawn from the text.

You spoke in the plural and mentioned antibodies, but that article cites one person who was asthmatic and got a variant 4 months later. It says reinfection is still very rare and nothing about needing multiple vaccines. I suppose that could happen, who knows.

This is even more disturbing to me:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...detected-uk-has-been-deadlier-study-confirms/

It also flies in the face of what one poster here was saying about mutations always being weaker. If we allow people to just run around being human breeding grounds for variants this could get worse and worse. The less a virus replicates the less chance there is for mutation. So limit the replication with preventative measures, including vaccines, as much as possible.
 

kicksavedave

I'm just here for the memes and gifs.
Sponsor
Apr 29, 2009
10,615
13,261
Fallbrook, CA
www.tiasarms.org
The important thing to remember in regards to vaccines is if it’s 25% effective, like some flu vaccines are, that 25% can help ensure if you do get COVID that your symptoms will be mild compared to getting COVID without.

Thats not entirely how it works. 25% effective is because there are so many variants of seasonal flu, there is a 25% chance the one you are vaccinated against is the one you contact, not because there is a only 25% chance it will protect against a specific variant that was was designed from.
 

CapitalsCupReality

It’s Go Time!!
Feb 27, 2002
64,390
19,096
Three things: Don't 'bro' me, it makes you sound like a punk. Two, this "WHOLE" conversation is not about one very limited topic, it has facets which I don't recall anyone appointing you the arbiter of.

Three, if you wanted to prove that you weren't paying attention, then ignoring the several times I mention there being three, soon to be more, vaccine choices, and wanting to compare them, would be a good way. So 50% vs 0% isn't relevant, because that's not the question, and its also disputable that its better than nothing, if a better option is around the corner but stacking vaccines isn's shown to work. The question is, 85%, 90%, 95%, one shot, two shots, longer term effectiveness re: reinfection, and variant/strain effectiveness. We're likely not going to be given the option to stack all the vaccines on top of each other, so choosing the first one we're offered may not be the best choice. So the question may be 80% in 3 months, or 98% in 6 months, its a fair question even if you don't understand it. And again, as already mentioned, I'm fine with self lockdown until we have more clarity, so spare me any thing about me putting society at risk by wanting more information before making a critical decision.

I'm perfectly fine with you going out and getting the very first offering you can. Not sure why you are getting so cranky about me wanting more information to choose between the several options we have. As you have said before, let it go.

I’ll bro you any time I want. Pay attention next time. You decided to call me out after everyone was playing nice.

My 50% comment was in regard to the children’s vaccine. Many other errors in your response also, but I won’t waste more time while you play catch up.

Thanks again for playing Dave.
 

kicksavedave

I'm just here for the memes and gifs.
Sponsor
Apr 29, 2009
10,615
13,261
Fallbrook, CA
www.tiasarms.org
It also flies in the face of what one poster here was saying about mutations always being weaker. If we allow people to just run around being human breeding grounds for variants this could get worse and worse. The less a virus replicates the less chance there is for mutation. So limit the replication with preventative measures, including vaccines, as much as possible.

Part of the problem with the urgency created by a pandemic is that a lot of the studies get rushed, and inevitably quality can become compromised. If the theory that the new variants are in fact more deadly holds true, it sucks and only increases the urgency. I read that study, and while its numbers look startling, its lacking a lot of the controls usually established and its sample sizes aren't relatively large. Its also actually just a compilation of a lot of much smaller reporting sets and not all the data agrees. One example:

Initial analysis of 14,939 SGTF cases and 15,555 comparators who had at least 28 days between specimen date and the study period end date. There were 25 deaths (0.17%) in SGTF cases and 26 deaths (0.17%) in comparators (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.58 – 1.73).

SGTF is the new variant and in this data set there is no statistical difference. Obviously, more data and more studies are needed.
 

g00n

Retired Global Mod
Nov 22, 2007
30,433
14,292
Thats not entirely how it works. 25% effective is because there are so many variants of seasonal flu, there is a 25% chance the one you are vaccinated against is the one you contact, not because there is a only 25% chance it will protect against a specific variant that was was designed from.

I've had doctors tell me in the exam room that the vaccine doesn't prevent the flu but makes the symptoms milder. And I've read the same thing about Rona vaccines. fwiw
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->