C-19 Vaccinations

[wilwhite]

Inaccurate data spreads about COVID hospitalizations in the UK

Vallance spoke at a press conference Monday, where he said that 60% of COVID-19 hospitalizations are among fully vaccinated individuals.

apnews.com

Here is a link. The chief scientific advisor did state 60% were fully vaccinated.

He later corrected that to 60% were unvaccinated.

My question then becomes, of the 40% of vaccinated people, how many are double vaccinated? Then I would follow that up with how did you fuck up your statement so badly? He didn’t vaccinated originally…he specified double vaccinated. That is awfully specific to be misspoken. Perhaps, he meant 40% are fully vaccinated…and in that 60%, there are people who have had a single dose.

That makes sense. And the UK has over 80% of adults at least partially vaccinated, so the 60% unvaccinated comes from only 20% of the adult population.

I think the idea with the NFL is that vaccinated players are less likely to transmit it even if they get it.

 

[gkekoa]

That makes sense. And the UK has over 80% of adults at least partially vaccinated, so the 60% unvaccinated comes from only 20% of the adult population.

I think the idea with the NFL is that vaccinated players are less likely to transmit it even if they get it.

I agree the numbers make more sense with the correction but that is still a whole lot of COVID for something that is supposedly 95% effective.

I still have a problem with his wording though. He didn’t just claim vaccinated…he stated double vaccinated.

 

[wilwhite]

I agree the numbers make more sense with the correction but that is still a whole lot of COVID for something that is supposedly 95% effective.

I still have a problem with his wording though. He didn’t just claim vaccinated…he stated double vaccinated.

Well, if 100% of the population is vaccinated, 100% of people hospitalized for COVID would be vaccinated. Question is whether that's 100% of a big number or a small number.

Basically, if 10 people would go to the hospital if they got COVID, but 9 out of those 10 were vaccinated, you'd expect one of those nine vaccinations wouldn't be effective, so you'd end up with two people in the hospital, one vaccinated and one not, for a 50-50 split.

 

[gkekoa]

Well, if 100% of the population is vaccinated, 100% of people hospitalized for COVID would be vaccinated. Question is whether that's 100% of a big number or a small number.

Basically, if 10 people would go to the hospital if they got COVID, but 9 out of those 10 were vaccinated, you'd expect one of those nine vaccinations wouldn't be effective, so you'd end up with two people in the hospital, one vaccinated and one not, for a 50-50 split.

I agree, if 100% of the pollution was vaccinated, 100% of new cases would be from the vaccinated. The way government’s are pushing the vaccine, you would expect that number of cases to be extremely small though. The U.K. has nearly 30,000 new cases today. That number is pretty damn close to what the US had yesterday. The problem is the U.K. has about 1/5 the population of the US.

I like how you try to use numbers, so let’s use the actual numbers. 31,621 new cases were found in the U.K. today. The population in the U.K. is a touch over 68 million.

54 million vaccinated if 80% is vaccinated. It is 70% for fully vaccinated.
14 million unvaccinated.

12,648 new cases from vaccinated is 40% of new cases
18,973 new cases from unvaccinated.

Nobody has ever claimed that being vaccinated doesn’t lower the transmission…but 12,000 new cases from 54 million is still quite a bit.

To put it into percentages, .023% of vaccinated population are new single day cases of COVID.
.135% of unvaccinated population are the new single day cases of COVID.

 

[skinsdad62]

I like how you try to use numbers, so let’s use the actual numbers. 31,621 new cases were found in the U.K. today. The population in the U.K. is a touch over 68 million.

54 million vaccinated if 80% is vaccinated. It is 70% for fully vaccinated.
14 million unvaccinated.

12,648 new cases from vaccinated is 40% of new cases
18,973 new cases from unvaccinated.

Nobody has ever claimed that being vaccinated doesn’t lower the transmission…but 12,000 new cases from 54 million is still quite a bit.

To put it into percentages, .023% of vaccinated population are new single day cases of COVID.
.135% of unvaccinated population are the new single day cases of COVID.

i look at those numbers and i dont see any real difference . in both cases you have between a 99.77 and 99.865 % chance of not having anything happen

 

[Sportster 72]

This thread has strayed way away from football.

 

[gkekoa]

I like how you try to use numbers, so let’s use the actual numbers. 31,621 new cases were found in the U.K. today. The population in the U.K. is a touch over 68 million.

54 million vaccinated if 80% is vaccinated. It is 70% for fully vaccinated.
14 million unvaccinated.

12,648 new cases from vaccinated is 40% of new cases
18,973 new cases from unvaccinated.

Nobody has ever claimed that being vaccinated doesn’t lower the transmission…but 12,000 new cases from 54 million is still quite a bit.

To put it into percentages, .023% of vaccinated population are new single day cases of COVID.
.135% of unvaccinated population are the new single day cases of COVID.

i look at those numbers and i dont see any real difference . in both cases you have between a 99.77 and 99.865 % chance of not having anything happen

There is a big difference in those numbers; however, I am not sure the number warrants anything. A factor of ten is rather large…but it isn’t close to being worthy of the risk if an individual says so.

 

[skinsdad62]

There is a big difference in those numbers; however, I am not sure the number warrants anything. A factor of ten is rather large…but it isn’t close to being worthy of the risk if an individual says so.

someone show me a 10 yr study on anything to do with the covid vaccine . we know nothing about the side affects

i am going to go with 2 drugs that i have personal experience . One from a very first love of my life . her mother took a drug to help her through the difficult pregnancy with this particular girl .

it turns out that drug had an unknown side affect which causes cancer . my girl friend died from that resulting cancer 16 yrs after the fact because it was an experimental drug and the best they had at the time .

the next time has to do with my wife of 33 yrs . she has epilepsy and she was given depakote , the best drug for it and her at the time since she was 12 to control the siezures . well my wife and i went on to have 7 children . out of the 7 children 3 didnt have some type of birth defect 4 did and it was found out that depakote was the culprit . we got a settlement for it .

no one intentionally covered up anything , they just didnt know

so i look at it from that lens , i want to see what happens . it should be my choice not my companies choice . now can they do it ? well yes but should they ?

now add to it that i have had covid 2x's ( the rare 1-2% that have ) my 91 yr old mother got it and survived , 99.9 % of the population will survive the pandemic then why is it unreasonable to wait and see ?

i am told to "follow the science " but that data is consistently ignored

i totally understand people getting the vaccine and actually taking it , my daughter did , but why do people think they have the right to coerce me to get it ? i am not coercing them not to get it . respect my choice and i will respect yours

the NFL can simply come out with the same protocols it had last year and end the debate . everyone masks up , everyone is quarantined, everything is sanitized, and no one is singled out or made to be scapegoats

 

[skinz2winz]

someone show me a 10 yr study on anything to do with the covid vaccine . we know nothing about the side affects

i am going to go with 2 drugs that i have personal experience . One from a very first love of my life . her mother took a drug to help her through the difficult pregnancy with this particular girl .

it turns out that drug had an unknown side affect which causes cancer . my girl friend died from that resulting cancer 16 yrs after the fact because it was an experimental drug and the best they had at the time .

the next time has to do with my wife of 33 yrs . she has epilepsy and she was given depakote , the best drug for it and her at the time since she was 12 to control the siezures . well my wife and i went on to have 7 children . out of the 7 children 3 didnt have some type of birth defect 4 did and it was found out that depakote was the culprit . we got a settlement for it .

no one intentionally covered up anything , they just didnt know

so i look at it from that lens , i want to see what happens . it should be my choice not my companies choice . now can they do it ? well yes but should they ?

now add to it that i have had covid 2x's ( the rare 1-2% that have ) my 91 yr old mother got it and survived , 99.9 % of the population will survive the pandemic then why is it unreasonable to wait and see ?

i am told to "follow the science " but that data is consistently ignored

i totally understand people getting the vaccine and actually taking it , my daughter did , but why do people think they have the right to coerce me to get it ? i am not coercing them not to get it . respect my choice and i will respect yours

the NFL can simply come out with the same protocols it had last year and end the debate . everyone masks up , everyone is quarantined, everything is sanitized, and no one is singled out or made to be scapegoats

The NFL went in the totally wrong direction on this. As dad has pointed out previously, rather than bring politics into this, let's just say the NFL is heading in a collusioness direction.

 

[scotsman1948]

Wow. The NFL ain't playing I guess when it comes to vaccinations.

Far as freedom of choice goes. They do have freedom of choice. They can choose not to get it or to get it. Freedoms can come with consequences and repercussions.

Those freedoms can also effect a team as a whole. The NFL has no plans to cancel or reschedule games this year. Be pretty shitty if a DL or OL player got sick and infected everyone in the unit.

And the NFL has the freedom of choice to enforce chosen policies with its employees. If the employees chose to ignore those policies appropriate punishment can and should be imposed. How about the NFL suspend those players who elect to ignore without pay

 

[skinsdad62]

And the NFL has the freedom of choice to enforce chosen policies with its employees. If the employees chose to ignore those policies appropriate punishment can and should be imposed. How about the NFL suspend those players who elect to ignore without pay

fine suspend hopkins and allen for it

 

[skinsdad62]

Back in the 1940-50s a Lobotomy in the treatment of certain mental disorders was considered "Settled Science". If a doctor questioned this barbaric procedure he would have been viewed as ignorant or inadequate.

In fact, in 1949, the inventor of the procedure, Doctor António Egas Moniz, was awarded the Nobel Prize for his discovery. Lobotomy was considered Standard of Care, and any neurosurgeon not performing this accepted procedure would have been considered sub-standard.

Looking back now, we realize how ignorant these doctors were, and how dangerous this procedure was. Thousands of patients had their SELF destroyed by this procedure and became docile, robotic, non-humans

So, when you hear someone say the phrase "Settled Science, just remember that the Lobotomy used to be that. When you hear someone talk about Standard of Care, realize that this is often based on no meaningful research, and based entirely on the opinions of a few "experts" in the field.

There is no such thing as Settled Science, everything should be questioned and studied.

Standard of Care is a false paradigm implying that we know everything about a subject there is to know, and that this model should not be questioned.

Think, study, watch, research, debate; we are figuring it out as we go.

 

[scotsman1948]

fine suspend hopkins and allen for it

Personally it is the teams employees that are not following policy so I would punish the teams by requiring the teams forfeit games until compliance is met

 

[scotsman1948]

Back in the 1940-50s a Lobotomy in the treatment of certain mental disorders was considered "Settled Science". If a doctor questioned this barbaric procedure he would have been viewed as ignorant or inadequate.

In fact, in 1949, the inventor of the procedure, Doctor António Egas Moniz, was awarded the Nobel Prize for his discovery. Lobotomy was considered Standard of Care, and any neurosurgeon not performing this accepted procedure would have been considered sub-standard.

Looking back now, we realize how ignorant these doctors were, and how dangerous this procedure was. Thousands of patients had their SELF destroyed by this procedure and became docile, robotic, non-humans

So, when you hear someone say the phrase "Settled Science, just remember that the Lobotomy used to be that. When you hear someone talk about Standard of Care, realize that this is often based on no meaningful research, and based entirely on the opinions of a few "experts" in the field.

There is no such thing as Settled Science, everything should be questioned and studied.

Standard of Care is a false paradigm implying that we know everything about a subject there is to know, and that this model should not be questioned.

Think, study, watch, research, debate; we are figuring it out as we go.

So allow millions to die while waiting for the studies, watching, research and debate to be carried out? And how many years should we allow and how many deaths are acceptable?

 

[gkekoa]

So allow millions to die while waiting for the studies, watching, research and debate to be carried out? And how many years should we allow and how many deaths are acceptable?

Millions did die worldwide while we waited for a vaccine, most would have been dead within a few years anyways.

Well…we all die. The virus kills less than 2% of those it infects.

As we develop natural immunity, the numbers would also go down.

The numbers also show that the vaccine is far from perfect. Look at the U.K., they have 1/5 our population but are almost equal in new cases, while being 70% fully vaccinated and over 80% with at least one shot.

So these players that don’t want to take an experimental vaccine, what are the odds of long-term negative effects or death for them by the virus? How about their children? Exactly…the odds are zero…sit down and shut up.

 

[gkekoa]

Personally it is the teams employees that are not following policy so I would punish the teams by requiring the teams forfeit games until compliance is met

Outstanding. Your answer would be to take money out of your own pocket by canceling how the league makes money.

You would suck as a businessman.

 

[gkekoa]

And the NFL has the freedom of choice to enforce chosen policies with its employees. If the employees chose to ignore those policies appropriate punishment can and should be imposed. How about the NFL suspend those players who elect to ignore without pay

I love how you think the league can simply make up rules regarding working conditions when the players have a union. The league can’t simply make up punishments for players without union approval. The union wouldn’t even come close to doing this.

 

[scotsman1948]

Millions did die worldwide while we waited for a vaccine, most would have been dead within a few years anyways.

Well…we all die. The virus kills less than 2% of those it infects.

As we develop natural immunity, the numbers would also go down.

The numbers also show that the vaccine is far from perfect. Look at the U.K., they have 1/5 our population but are almost equal in new cases, while being 70% fully vaccinated and over 80% with at least one shot.

So these players that don’t want to take an experimental vaccine, what are the odds of long-term negative effects or death for them by the virus? How about their children? Exactly…the odds are zero…sit down and shut up.

Oh wonderful attitude they would be dead anyway. Don’t take this wrong no never mind take it wrong, get the virus, don’t get the vaccine and let yourself die because you’re going to die anyway.

 

[scotsman1948]

Outstanding. Your answer would be to take money out of your own pocket by canceling how the league makes money.

You would suck as a businessman.

With so many employees refusing to do the intelligent thing the season probably goes down the tubes anyway so going to lose money anyway.

 

[scotsman1948]

I love how you think the league can simply make up rules regarding working conditions when the players have a union. The league can’t simply make up punishments for players without union approval. The union wouldn’t even come close to doing this.

The league can and probably will end up having to shut down a lot of its operations if the virus with its variants gets worse. And what’s the union going to do go to court and hope they can find a judge who will order the league to play