Jump to content

Recommended Posts

My employer, in its Infinite Wisdom, has moved the goal posts.  Now, we are not considered fully vaccinated unless we have the booster.  My wife's employer is now stating that fully vaccinated means the two initial shots, the booster, AND the 4th shot/3rd dose (used interchangeably). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 11.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

7 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

So you, yet again, are unable to PROVE your assertions... quelle surprise... 

I guess you didn't get the booster shot either, ineffective vaccines, you know... or did you?

Why do I ? I can just use your own assertions against you. Where's your proof either way? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pregnant women who are unvaccinated against the coronavirus are not only more likely to be hospitalized for covid-19, but also at more risk of seeing their newborns die less than a month after birth, according to a peer-reviewed study in Scotland that was published Thursday.

 

The World Health Organization has recommended two new drugs for patients with covid-19, the oral medication baricitinib and the monoclonal antibody treatment sotrovimab.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are those of the kind of unvaccinated ladies that only got injected less than 7 days before hospitalization?

Edited by sunday
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, JWB said:

Pregnant women who are unvaccinated against the coronavirus are not only more likely to be hospitalized for covid-19, but also at more risk of seeing their newborns die less than a month after birth, according to a peer-reviewed study in Scotland that was published Thursday.

 

The World Health Organization has recommended two new drugs for patients with covid-19, the oral medication baricitinib and the monoclonal antibody treatment sotrovimab.

 

 

Nothing says lawsuit than a bunch of dead newborns. Expect much damage control and ass covering. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

Why do I ? I can just use your own assertions against you. Where's your proof either way? 

 

Ryanworld apparently has this ridicule rule in which Ryan can recant anything he writes but everyone else can't learn a thing. First, you went back a YEAR to find something that you believe it's the same as you defend NOW (hint, no it isn't). Second, you are just squirming rather than answering, again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have already posted before that pregnant women are at higher risk from covid. Youngest death pregnant woman around here was something like 23, no comorbidities. Some doctors think that basically you can treat pregnancy as a comorbidity when it come to the risks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, bojan said:

I have already posted before that pregnant women are at higher risk from covid. Youngest death pregnant woman around here was something like 23, no comorbidities. Some doctors think that basically you can treat pregnancy as a comorbidity when it come to the risks.

First off, I believe the preferred term this week is "parental persons born with ovaries."

On a more serious note, the mammalian pregnancy process is so bizarre, it sometimes amazes me that the casualty rate isn't higher. Massive hormonal changes etc., and sex hormones massively impact the immune system (if ya didn't know, older men with low T are more likely to have adverse COVID cases).

Dunno if pregnancy can be considered an inflammatory condition; if so, it absolutely would be a co-morbidity. In which case, it's possibly critical for a pregnant wo... PPBWO to get vaxxed very early in the pregnancy timeline, while (insert preferred pronoun) still has a functioning immune system.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, rmgill said:

I find it interesting  that per that chart China claims to have had only 104,580 cases and 4,636 deaths.

That's less cases than the State of Maine and less deaths than Idaho. 

Does anyone believe this?

And the Chinese government wonders why there are questions on their involvement in the origins of the virus?

Edited by 17thfabn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ivanhoe said:

Dunno if pregnancy can be considered an inflammatory condition; 

 

Judging by most women who are 7 + months pregnant I'd say pregnancy is an inflated condition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, nitflegal said:

1) Yes.  I think Covid is a dangerous disease and it appears to have a significant chance of long term effects that we currently do not understand.  To be a little less general; if you're over 50 I would take it.  Outside of some people who are outliers the immune system is less effective by that age, recovery is prolonged, and pulmonary reserve capacity is lowered which means you're less able to fight off a respiratory pathogen.  40-50, I'd take it but if you're healthy and active and not spending large amounts of time in groups inside with crap ventilation I think it's totally reasonable to make the judgement not to take a vaccine without long-term safety data.  20-40?  Same as above applies but if I were trying to make a baby I'd really be on the fence.  There is nothing in the data that I have seen that indicates a risk.  However, when these types of compounds cause subtle or longer term effects that is an area that typically lags in our understanding. 10-20?  If you have significant comorbidities maybe.  Other than that if you have no choice because of mandates I think the vaccine is less risky than social isolation to a child.  However, we don't have a good profile on what this does to adolescent development and in my experience on the testing side if a compound makes it through the toxicology testing unscathed its the reprotox studies where it craps the bed.  So if those two conditions don't hold I would not recommend it and my 15 year old is unvaccinated despite an awful lot of school pressure.  Under 10?  That's f*cking insane.  We know Covid is extremely unlikely to harm a child under 10, we know they are generally asymptomatic and thus extremely likely to transmit it even if they get it.  We also know from decades of pharm testing that the most dangerous time to give a patient a compound is that window before adolescence.  If you're running preclinical trials and you want to see an awful lot of dead baby rats, give them a compound in their first 2-3 weeks (equivalent developmentally to a 1-7 year old human).  There is a reason a tremendous amount of drugs aren't routinely given to kids in their single digits even if they are generally approved for use across the population.  Hell, it is not recommended to give aspirin to kids under 12.  

2) I honestly don't know.  The data is really sketchy right now on how much it helps and it is still an EUA compound from a developmental standpoint.  Will it hurt you? Dunno but probably not.  Will it help much?  Dunno, maybe?  If you're over 50 and it would make you feel more comfortable?  Sure why not.  If you have comorbidities?  From a risk assessment standpoint its probably the smart move.  

Thanks. 👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/13/2022 at 6:19 PM, rmgill said:

Go eat some horse grain muffins. 

Go on, you know you want to paint another kill ring on "Vandal".

Or do you prefer the little flags so you can prove you're the modern Hans-Ulrich Rudel of the Internet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DB said:

Go on, you know you want to paint another kill ring on "Vandal".

Naah. Not even for stalking/'killing' SdKfz232s. It is just make believe. 

You want a good nice conversation, have one. Make points, I'll make counter points. But you start slinging, I'll give back what I get.

Given how you Total Vax people seem so bent on being up people's arses on their health care, I figure pointing you to some food to make you more regular would be appreciated. What's the problem? 

Seriously, I can't figure why you're so dead set on defending the wildly sweeping messaging and mandates of the folks in power who seem to want to just tell people what to do despite the complete utter lack of any sort of logical consistency. I figured you were smarter than that. 

Edited by rmgill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2022 at 9:14 AM, nitflegal said:

1) Yes.  I think Covid is a dangerous disease and it appears to have a significant chance of long term effects that we currently do not understand.  To be a little less general; if you're over 50 I would take it.  Outside of some people who are outliers the immune system is less effective by that age, recovery is prolonged, and pulmonary reserve capacity is lowered which means you're less able to fight off a respiratory pathogen.  40-50, I'd take it but if you're healthy and active and not spending large amounts of time in groups inside with crap ventilation I think it's totally reasonable to make the judgement not to take a vaccine without long-term safety data.  20-40?  Same as above applies but if I were trying to make a baby I'd really be on the fence.  There is nothing in the data that I have seen that indicates a risk.  However, when these types of compounds cause subtle or longer term effects that is an area that typically lags in our understanding. 10-20?  If you have significant comorbidities maybe.  Other than that if you have no choice because of mandates I think the vaccine is less risky than social isolation to a child.  However, we don't have a good profile on what this does to adolescent development and in my experience on the testing side if a compound makes it through the toxicology testing unscathed its the reprotox studies where it craps the bed.  So if those two conditions don't hold I would not recommend it and my 15 year old is unvaccinated despite an awful lot of school pressure.  Under 10?  That's f*cking insane.  We know Covid is extremely unlikely to harm a child under 10, we know they are generally asymptomatic and thus extremely likely to transmit it even if they get it.  We also know from decades of pharm testing that the most dangerous time to give a patient a compound is that window before adolescence.  If you're running preclinical trials and you want to see an awful lot of dead baby rats, give them a compound in their first 2-3 weeks (equivalent developmentally to a 1-7 year old human).  There is a reason a tremendous amount of drugs aren't routinely given to kids in their single digits even if they are generally approved for use across the population.  Hell, it is not recommended to give aspirin to kids under 12.  

2) I honestly don't know.  The data is really sketchy right now on how much it helps and it is still an EUA compound from a developmental standpoint.  Will it hurt you? Dunno but probably not.  Will it help much?  Dunno, maybe?  If you're over 50 and it would make you feel more comfortable?  Sure why not.  If you have comorbidities?  From a risk assessment standpoint its probably the smart move.  

Agree with this 100%. Its more or less my view on the vaccines and arrived at with albeit less of an informed as Niflegel's career, I'm still reading between the lines. Additionally, the information we learned about COVID back in May of 2020 lead me to see my own possible exposure and infection as low risk when combined with my own medical history and general state of health. The fact that it was a mild chest cough for 2 days was proof enough for my satisfaction. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Free:

CDC says N95 masks offer far better protection than cloth masks against omicron variant

But the updated guidance stops short of saying everyone should wear them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/01/14/cdc-masks-best-protection-guidance/

 

Man claims his penis shrank 1.5 inches, ‘COVID d – – k is real’ say docs.

https://nypost.com/2022/01/13/man-claims-his-penis-shrunk-after-contracting-covid/

 

PerVaccHospUS_v02_DP_1640016161287_hpEmb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ivanhoe said:
Quote

But more often they attacked even the potential of an accidental lab leak—especially after Trump said at the White House on April 30 that intelligence agencies had evidence of a leak. “We’re going to put it all together,” Trump said. “I think we will have a very good answer eventually. And China might even tell us.”

Reporters roundly attacked this claim. 

The Atlantic referred to Trump’s statement about “the virus first appearing in a Chinese lab” as “a notion that scientists have dismissed.” The Washington Post posted a “Fact Checker” on May 1 headlined “Was the New Coronavirus Accidentally Released from a Wuhan Lab? It’s Doubtful.” (This piece ran just weeks after Josh Rogin’s column in the Post on the State Department’s concerns about the Wuhan Institute of Virology.)

But then the Post had been insisting on the natural origins theory as early as February, long before anyone had definitive evidence either way. In an attack on Senator Tom Cotton, it called the lab leak idea “a coronavirus conspiracy theory that was already debunked.”

Fauci fueled the anti-lab leak sentiment in a May 4 interview with National Geographic. Fauci “says the best evidence shows the virus behind the pandemic was not made in a lab in China,” the magazine reported.

Some reporters went even further, arguing that the lab leak theory was racist. The online magazine Slate claimed in February 2020 that “rumors of a lab escape or a bioweapon stem from historical amnesia, a caricatured villain, and good old-fashioned racism.” More than a year later, Apoorva Mandavilli, who covered the epidemic for the Times, would tweet that the theory had “racist roots.”

Trust the science is not the same as trusting some so-called scientists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sunday said:

Trust the science is not the same as trusting some so-called scientists.

"Trust the science" is actually not a great idea. One should trust a good scientific process, in the long run.

One might note that most of what is going on these days is not good scientific processes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

Agree with this 100%. Its more or less my view on the vaccines and arrived at with albeit less of an informed as Niflegel's career, I'm still reading between the lines. Additionally, the information we learned about COVID back in May of 2020 lead me to see my own possible exposure and infection as low risk when combined with my own medical history and general state of health. The fact that it was a mild chest cough for 2 days was proof enough for my satisfaction. 

Rational risk management driven by good data is racist. And sexist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Mikel2 said:

 

Quote

But Spotify did not pull an April 2021 episode in which Rogan actively discouraged young people from getting vaccinated, saying, “If you’re like 21 years old, and you say to me, ‘Should I get vaccinated?’ I’ll go ‘no.’ ”

Gosh, that's quite a falsehood.

Quote

Doctors and medical professionals who signed the letter took umbrage with one recent episode in particular featuring Robert Malone, a physician who bills himself as having played a key role in the creation of mRNA vaccines.

Spineless journalism right there (yeah, quite a surprise).

Quote

“All of us in the science world were sort of like, ‘What is going on?’ ” she told The Post. “We realized that he has a platform this size, and there is nothing on Spotify that has a clear policy to moderate misinformation on the platform.”

All of us? Anyone who bills themself as a  scientist that makes such a clearly idiotic statement is unlikely to be capable of doing good scientific research.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ivanhoe said:

"Trust the science" is actually not a great idea. One should trust a good scientific process, in the long run.

One might note that most of what is going on these days is not good scientific processes.

Well, not "most of what is going", only most of what is used to justify some controversial policies.

Edited by sunday
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, rmgill said:

Seriously, I can't figure why you're so dead set on defending the wildly sweeping messaging and mandates of the folks in power who seem to want to just tell people what to do despite the complete utter lack of any sort of logical consistency.

The way I see it, each state confronted with a highly contagious disease that spreads over the air that results in even just a moderate hospitalization rate has essentially three options to choose from,

1) Repeated lockdowns

2) Vaccination campaign (provided there is one)

3) Triage

If all of the population was infected and only 5% required extended hospitalization we're talking about 10 times more than a well-endowed country has capacity, e.g. 4 million  (out of 80) potential patients in Germany vs a hospital capacity short of 500,000 beds (2019, according to Statista). Most countries have a much worse hospital bed capacity.

Assuming that nobody wants triage, because if we can pick ony one out of ten patients that need care in a hospital the mortality rate will go way up, lockdowns are a reasonable reaction to slow the spread of the virus so as not to exceed the hospital capacity (which is unelastic in the short term). Once that vaccines are available, they are clearly the better alternative to lockdowns. Once that 90% of the population have recovered or have been vaccinated, with the same hospitalization rate of 5% the health care system will no longer be threatened to be overwhelmed.

The problem simply is a numbers game. Potentially we need ten times the hospital capacity than is available. We can't quickly ramp up (and, after the crisis, shrink) the health care sector since trained nurses and paramedics are a "long lead item" and training them isn't very scalable, especially if you try to maintain professional standards.

 

Now, maybe our societies are a bit inflexible as far as flipping the mental switch between defined processes and a "can do spirit, it's war" type of organizing things. But fuck me, I wouldn't know how that could easily be changed as long as we try and stay open societies that maximize individual liberty. The flip side of the coin of living in a liberal society is to assume responsibility beyond one's own life, but also towards the society in which we live in. Nobody can exist in a vacuum.

 

I don't see a convincing alternative to broad vaccination. Lockdowns are terrible, triage is even worse. So, pending better alternatives, I'm all for vaccination. That doesn't mean that I'm advocating mandatory vaccination (I don't think it's wise to make things mandatory if you're not willing to enforce them ... and in that context, I'd prefer if we "strongly recommended" the proper use of N95 masks rather than making token wearing mandatory with utter disregard of how well they're being fitted). I don't think that we should pressure teenagers and children to get vaccinated (but I recognize schools and daycare facilities as important vectors for virus spread). Nevertheless, as long as the threat of overwhelmed hospitals looms while there's no good medical treatment for the disease, broad vaccination seems to be the only viable alternative. That doesn't seem to be particularly hard to understand.

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


×
×
  • Create New...