(12-10-2020 06:20 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  As the vaccine rolls out I think the number of vaccine hesitations will drop.

I agree. I had always planned on getting it, just not wanting to be first in line. But after these discussions on this forum, I feel better about going earlier.

I also think that there will be places that you have to show a vac receipt to go - movies, casinos, other large group meetings.

side effects

(12-10-2020 04:56 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 02:00 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 12:32 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  So, today is the day that the independent review board will vote on giving an EUA to Pfizer for their Covid-19 vaccine and will do the same sort of reviewing process for Moderna next week.

I think the release of the vaccines is imminent.

I'm including a link to a podcast done a week ago for The Journal of the American Medical Association. It's an interview of Dr. Paul Offitt, probably one of the most reputable and well-known vaccinologists and academic pediatricians in the world. He is on the independent board that is reviewing the vaccines.

This piece is the most timely, clear and transparent review of the current Covid vaccines that I have heard. It answers a LOT of the questions that we all have about these products. For me, it reinforced my decision to take the vaccine when it's available for my age group..and to reccomend it to my family members.

A 30 minute podcast, but well worth the time.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/co...0501350220

Thanks Grey. Great input.

I think a lot of people (not necessarily on here, but in the country) would be surprised to know how vaccines work and thus how limited the risks of new ones can be and usually are. MOSTLY they stimulate and target your own immune system as opposed to actually fighting the disease itself like most medications do. Its the stimulation and targeting that makes the difference and makes it effective. Worst case they usually don't help... only if you have a sensitive system or in rare cases are they usually a risk, and if you're at risk for this, you would have likely been at risk for every other vaccine.

Another reason for the early optimism (which can still be too optimistic) in a vaccine as well as having far more than just one option. Later adopters will face less scrutiny based on the actions of these vaccines and similarities in the methods of targeting and stimulating.

Something tells me that these same people will be refusing the vaccination. Hopefully not enough that it prevents the US from achieving that 100m vaccinated number...

https://www.vice.com/en/article/5dpdan/a...y-policies

Do you have some data for your opinion that mask pushback is going to correlate significantly with vaccine refusal? Or did you just want to take an insipid drive-by political shot? Would you like to know what group in this country is actually most likely to refuse vaccination? Hint: they vote Democratic in overwhelming proportions.

(12-11-2020 04:56 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 04:56 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 02:00 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 12:32 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  So, today is the day that the independent review board will vote on giving an EUA to Pfizer for their Covid-19 vaccine and will do the same sort of reviewing process for Moderna next week.

I think the release of the vaccines is imminent.

I'm including a link to a podcast done a week ago for The Journal of the American Medical Association. It's an interview of Dr. Paul Offitt, probably one of the most reputable and well-known vaccinologists and academic pediatricians in the world. He is on the independent board that is reviewing the vaccines.

This piece is the most timely, clear and transparent review of the current Covid vaccines that I have heard. It answers a LOT of the questions that we all have about these products. For me, it reinforced my decision to take the vaccine when it's available for my age group..and to reccomend it to my family members.

A 30 minute podcast, but well worth the time.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/co...0501350220

Thanks Grey. Great input.

I think a lot of people (not necessarily on here, but in the country) would be surprised to know how vaccines work and thus how limited the risks of new ones can be and usually are. MOSTLY they stimulate and target your own immune system as opposed to actually fighting the disease itself like most medications do. Its the stimulation and targeting that makes the difference and makes it effective. Worst case they usually don't help... only if you have a sensitive system or in rare cases are they usually a risk, and if you're at risk for this, you would have likely been at risk for every other vaccine.

Another reason for the early optimism (which can still be too optimistic) in a vaccine as well as having far more than just one option. Later adopters will face less scrutiny based on the actions of these vaccines and similarities in the methods of targeting and stimulating.

Something tells me that these same people will be refusing the vaccination. Hopefully not enough that it prevents the US from achieving that 100m vaccinated number...

https://www.vice.com/en/article/5dpdan/a...y-policies

Do you have some data for your opinion that mask pushback is going to correlate significantly with vaccine refusal? Or did you just want to take an insipid drive-by political shot? Would you like to know what group in this country is actually most likely to refuse vaccination? Hint: they vote Democratic in overwhelming proportions.

I don't have any data... just musing for the most part. I imagine there is a correlation to people who think the pandemic is the plandemic and people who refuse to get vaccinated.

The distrust of the medical field among the black community is a whole different discussion and brings many factors to fore beyond the current pandemic (the Tuskegee syphillis study only the tip of the iceberg).

(12-11-2020 08:45 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(12-11-2020 04:56 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 04:56 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 02:00 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 12:32 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  So, today is the day that the independent review board will vote on giving an EUA to Pfizer for their Covid-19 vaccine and will do the same sort of reviewing process for Moderna next week.

I think the release of the vaccines is imminent.

I'm including a link to a podcast done a week ago for The Journal of the American Medical Association. It's an interview of Dr. Paul Offitt, probably one of the most reputable and well-known vaccinologists and academic pediatricians in the world. He is on the independent board that is reviewing the vaccines.

This piece is the most timely, clear and transparent review of the current Covid vaccines that I have heard. It answers a LOT of the questions that we all have about these products. For me, it reinforced my decision to take the vaccine when it's available for my age group..and to reccomend it to my family members.

A 30 minute podcast, but well worth the time.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/co...0501350220

Thanks Grey. Great input.

I think a lot of people (not necessarily on here, but in the country) would be surprised to know how vaccines work and thus how limited the risks of new ones can be and usually are. MOSTLY they stimulate and target your own immune system as opposed to actually fighting the disease itself like most medications do. Its the stimulation and targeting that makes the difference and makes it effective. Worst case they usually don't help... only if you have a sensitive system or in rare cases are they usually a risk, and if you're at risk for this, you would have likely been at risk for every other vaccine.

Another reason for the early optimism (which can still be too optimistic) in a vaccine as well as having far more than just one option. Later adopters will face less scrutiny based on the actions of these vaccines and similarities in the methods of targeting and stimulating.

Something tells me that these same people will be refusing the vaccination. Hopefully not enough that it prevents the US from achieving that 100m vaccinated number...

https://www.vice.com/en/article/5dpdan/a...y-policies

Do you have some data for your opinion that mask pushback is going to correlate significantly with vaccine refusal? Or did you just want to take an insipid drive-by political shot? Would you like to know what group in this country is actually most likely to refuse vaccination? Hint: they vote Democratic in overwhelming proportions.

I don't have any data... just musing for the most part. I imagine there is a correlation to people who think the pandemic is the plandemic and people who refuse to get vaccinated.

The distrust of the medical field among the black community is a whole different discussion and brings many factors to fore beyond the current pandemic (the Tuskegee syphillis study only the tip of the iceberg).

And a very old tip, at that.

I think there would be some overlap between the two groups, but not much more than the overlap between people whose favorite color is blue and those who like mayonnaise on their hamburgers.

The only anti mask person I know goes to the doctor regularly. I would expect him to take the vaccine when eligible. Btw, he is 66 and diabetic, so high risk. Just a stubborn, independent cuss.

(12-11-2020 09:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-11-2020 08:45 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(12-11-2020 04:56 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 04:56 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 02:00 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Thanks Grey. Great input.

I think a lot of people (not necessarily on here, but in the country) would be surprised to know how vaccines work and thus how limited the risks of new ones can be and usually are. MOSTLY they stimulate and target your own immune system as opposed to actually fighting the disease itself like most medications do. Its the stimulation and targeting that makes the difference and makes it effective. Worst case they usually don't help... only if you have a sensitive system or in rare cases are they usually a risk, and if you're at risk for this, you would have likely been at risk for every other vaccine.

Another reason for the early optimism (which can still be too optimistic) in a vaccine as well as having far more than just one option. Later adopters will face less scrutiny based on the actions of these vaccines and similarities in the methods of targeting and stimulating.

Something tells me that these same people will be refusing the vaccination. Hopefully not enough that it prevents the US from achieving that 100m vaccinated number...

https://www.vice.com/en/article/5dpdan/a...y-policies

Do you have some data for your opinion that mask pushback is going to correlate significantly with vaccine refusal? Or did you just want to take an insipid drive-by political shot? Would you like to know what group in this country is actually most likely to refuse vaccination? Hint: they vote Democratic in overwhelming proportions.

I don't have any data... just musing for the most part. I imagine there is a correlation to people who think the pandemic is the plandemic and people who refuse to get vaccinated.

The distrust of the medical field among the black community is a whole different discussion and brings many factors to fore beyond the current pandemic (the Tuskegee syphillis study only the tip of the iceberg).

And a very old tip, at that.

I think there would be some overlap between the two groups, but not much more than the overlap between people whose favorite color is blue and those who like mayonnaise on their hamburgers.

The only anti mask person I know goes to the doctor regularly. I would expect him to take the vaccine when eligible. Btw, he is 66 and diabetic, so high risk. Just a stubborn, independent cuss.

So you don't think there will be any statistically significant correlation between people who think the pandemic is a hoax and those that refuse to get vaccinated?

(12-11-2020 11:32 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(12-11-2020 09:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-11-2020 08:45 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(12-11-2020 04:56 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 04:56 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Something tells me that these same people will be refusing the vaccination. Hopefully not enough that it prevents the US from achieving that 100m vaccinated number...

https://www.vice.com/en/article/5dpdan/a...y-policies

Do you have some data for your opinion that mask pushback is going to correlate significantly with vaccine refusal? Or did you just want to take an insipid drive-by political shot? Would you like to know what group in this country is actually most likely to refuse vaccination? Hint: they vote Democratic in overwhelming proportions.

I don't have any data... just musing for the most part. I imagine there is a correlation to people who think the pandemic is the plandemic and people who refuse to get vaccinated.

The distrust of the medical field among the black community is a whole different discussion and brings many factors to fore beyond the current pandemic (the Tuskegee syphillis study only the tip of the iceberg).

And a very old tip, at that.

I think there would be some overlap between the two groups, but not much more than the overlap between people whose favorite color is blue and those who like mayonnaise on their hamburgers.

The only anti mask person I know goes to the doctor regularly. I would expect him to take the vaccine when eligible. Btw, he is 66 and diabetic, so high risk. Just a stubborn, independent cuss.

So you don't think there will be any statistically significant correlation between people who think the pandemic is a hoax and those that refuse to get vaccinated?

My friend doesn’t think the pandemic is a hoax - he just doesn’t want to wear a mask and is willing to bet his life on it.

I don’t get the assumption that people who won’t wear masks think it is a hoax. I consider people who think it is a hoax to be as large a group as those who think the moon landings were a hoax. Lots of other reasons for people to not wear masks.

Plus not everybody you see without a mask is in defiance. I have forgotten mine a couple of times.

Thinking there are problems with vaccinations is a horse of a different color. We had lots of those people before we had a patient zero.

I have had my flu shot, my first shingles shot, my hep A and B, the pneumonia shot, and those are just the past couple of years. I don’t think I will develop autism. But if I had to make the choice for a 3 year old, I might pause.

My only concern is side effects.

I don't know of a single person who thinks the pandemic is a hoax. What they think is a hoax is the extreme steps being taken... That certain facts and figures are being exaggerated etc. There are some people saying its was man made and others saying it was released on purpose... But the idea that the virus itself is a hoax is mostly another of those memes crested by the media to belittle those who don't buy the panic they've been selling

blacks and the vaccine

(12-12-2020 06:14 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I don't know of a single person who thinks the pandemic is a hoax. What they think is a hoax is the extreme steps being taken... That certain facts and figures are being exaggerated etc. There are some people saying its was man made and others saying it was released on purpose... But the idea that the virus itself is a hoax is mostly another of those memes crested by the media to belittle those who don't buy the panic they've been selling

Exactly. We have let a disease which somewhere approaching 5% of the population have contracted, and which as killed about 0.1% of the population., completely shut down our country for now approaching one year. I have to believe that the shutdown had done far more harm to far more people that the virus itself has ever done or had any potential do.

In the last week, two people who are very close to me and whom I care about appear to have contracted the virus. I am very desperately praying for and thinking of both of them. But those are the first two people I have known who have come down with it. And with current treatment methods, it appears to be becoming much less deadly than it was initially, when we knew little or noting about it. I'm sorry, but that simply does not justify the extreme measures being taken--most of which have proved relatively ineffective.

I think there is a very real chance that somebody somewhere decided that the only way to beat Donald Trump was to have a major economic shutdown, and that this was a crisis not to let go to waste. I'm not engaging in conspiracy theory, I'm merely trying to find an explanation for something that seems otherwise to make zero sense.

I have said from the beginning that I would have isolated those at greater risk, and would have requited masks and social distancing but not shut down the economy for any significant period. I think that would have struck the proper balance between minimizing medical harm and minimizing economic harm. I've also argued for several proposals--Bismarck universal private health care/insurance, Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund, and kurzarbeit--that had they been in place the economic impact would have been much less pronounced.

I’m not engaging in conspiracy theory, I just think there is a real chance that this conspiracy theory is true... Chuckled a bit there.

Lockdowns started in China, continued in Italy, and then made their way to the US (after being used elsewhere). That alone should debunk this bunk that there was political motivation to hurt Trump when implementing lockdowns. Couple that, with the fact that we’re seeing other countries and parts of the US increasing restrictions again (after loosening them) AFTER Trump has been defeated should put that bunk to bed completely. If there was political motivation to these, why do them again when Trump has been voted out?

I also don’t get minimizing the virus’ impact and effect, given the current restrictions we have. Even with the existing restrictions in place, we’re seeing around 2,000 to 3,000 deaths per day right now.

And finally, it hasn’t completely shutdown the country - or your definition of “completely shutdown” is very different from mine. Planes are flying with passengers, businesses are open and operating in person, professional sports are being played, and I’m typing this from the parking lot of an active manufacturing facility... There are specific industries in specific states with operational restrictions, and there may be some industries completely shutdown, but reality doesn’t appear to match your description of the US.

(12-15-2020 11:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  That alone should debunk this bunk that there was political motivation to hurt Trump when implementing lockdowns. Couple that, with the fact that we’re seeing other countries and parts of the US increasing restrictions again (after loosening them) AFTER Trump has been defeated should put that bunk to bed completely.

And you do not consider that Queen Bee Pelosi refused to advance the aid package in the four months prior to the election -- and only advanced it post facto.

(12-15-2020 11:41 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-15-2020 11:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  That alone should debunk this bunk that there was political motivation to hurt Trump when implementing lockdowns. Couple that, with the fact that we’re seeing other countries and parts of the US increasing restrictions again (after loosening them) AFTER Trump has been defeated should put that bunk to bed completely.

And you do not consider that Queen Bee Pelosi refused to advance the aid package in the four months prior to the election -- and only advanced it post facto.

I believe the conversation was focused on how “somebody somewhere decided that the only way to beat Donald Trump was to have a major economic shutdown, and that this was a crisis not to let go to waste.”

So the Pelosi comment is only partially germane, if you’re talking about not letting the crisis go to waste. But it ignores that one round of funding occurred and that the House passed a Bill that sat in the Senate and that Reps equally were immovable on their need to have employer liability coverage. It wasn’t like the Reps were throwing the kitchen sink at Pelosi and she wasn’t moving.

Edit: but I can see why you think there is some politicking there. Just doesn’t seem relevant to the discussion of lockdowns and the evidence seems pretty thin given all the other circumstances.

(12-15-2020 11:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-15-2020 11:41 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-15-2020 11:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  That alone should debunk this bunk that there was political motivation to hurt Trump when implementing lockdowns. Couple that, with the fact that we’re seeing other countries and parts of the US increasing restrictions again (after loosening them) AFTER Trump has been defeated should put that bunk to bed completely.

And you do not consider that Queen Bee Pelosi refused to advance the aid package in the four months prior to the election -- and only advanced it post facto.

I believe the conversation was focused on how “somebody somewhere decided that the only way to beat Donald Trump was to have a major economic shutdown, and that this was a crisis not to let go to waste.”

So the Pelosi comment is only partially germane, if you’re talking about not letting the crisis go to waste. But it ignores that one round of funding occurred and that the House passed a Bill that sat in the Senate and that Reps equally were immovable on their need to have employer liability coverage. It wasn’t like the Reps were throwing the kitchen sink at Pelosi and she wasn’t moving.

Edit: but I can see why you think there is some politicking there. Just doesn’t seem relevant to the discussion of lockdowns and the evidence seems pretty thin given all the other circumstances.

It was the Dems throwing the kitchen sink.

(12-15-2020 11:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-15-2020 11:41 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-15-2020 11:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  That alone should debunk this bunk that there was political motivation to hurt Trump when implementing lockdowns. Couple that, with the fact that we’re seeing other countries and parts of the US increasing restrictions again (after loosening them) AFTER Trump has been defeated should put that bunk to bed completely.

And you do not consider that Queen Bee Pelosi refused to advance the aid package in the four months prior to the election -- and only advanced it post facto.

I believe the conversation was focused on how “somebody somewhere decided that the only way to beat Donald Trump was to have a major economic shutdown, and that this was a crisis not to let go to waste.”

So the Pelosi comment is only partially germane, if you’re talking about not letting the crisis go to waste. But it ignores that one round of funding occurred and that the House passed a Bill that sat in the Senate and that Reps equally were immovable on their need to have employer liability coverage. It wasn’t like the Reps were throwing the kitchen sink at Pelosi and she wasn’t moving.

Edit: but I can see why you think there is some politicking there. Just doesn’t seem relevant to the discussion of lockdowns and the evidence seems pretty thin given all the other circumstances.

And again, you ignore *her* own comments. Iirc, something on the order of 'now that we have a new group in town, we can'.

(12-15-2020 01:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-15-2020 11:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-15-2020 11:41 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-15-2020 11:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  That alone should debunk this bunk that there was political motivation to hurt Trump when implementing lockdowns. Couple that, with the fact that we’re seeing other countries and parts of the US increasing restrictions again (after loosening them) AFTER Trump has been defeated should put that bunk to bed completely.

And you do not consider that Queen Bee Pelosi refused to advance the aid package in the four months prior to the election -- and only advanced it post facto.

I believe the conversation was focused on how “somebody somewhere decided that the only way to beat Donald Trump was to have a major economic shutdown, and that this was a crisis not to let go to waste.”

So the Pelosi comment is only partially germane, if you’re talking about not letting the crisis go to waste. But it ignores that one round of funding occurred and that the House passed a Bill that sat in the Senate and that Reps equally were immovable on their need to have employer liability coverage. It wasn’t like the Reps were throwing the kitchen sink at Pelosi and she wasn’t moving.

Edit: but I can see why you think there is some politicking there. Just doesn’t seem relevant to the discussion of lockdowns and the evidence seems pretty thin given all the other circumstances.

And again, you ignore *her* own comments. Iirc, something on the order of 'now that we have a new group in town, we can'.

Not sure what words you’re talking about - obviously they carry a lot of weight so send them my way.

So not ignoring, just not aware of what you’re talking about.

I'll try hunting them down when I have a chance to do some back-search --

Trying to stay a little more data driven here, and a little less political...

Countries that can impose a true "lockdown" have been a lot more successful in controlling the virus, eg., New Zealand, Australia, S. Korea, Taiwan, Japan etc. They have more pliable populations, more experience with threatening viral illness (SARS) and, frankly, a better and more developed safety-net for business when they go into true lock-down mode. We have none of those and after the initial 2 week shutdown we haven't been too serious about really meaningful mitigation (like some of those other countries I mentioned) because...well, we feel like we really can't afford it, economically. And the mitigation efforts, in my opinion, have been half-hearted because of that. I live in a Covid hot-spot and, yes, we have been in what Texas says is heightened mitigation levels: closing of bars, reduction of restaurant capacity, etc. but, like Lad's comment, I really haven't seen any noticeable decrease in commerce. Parking lots are crammed with shoppers. Restaurants with waiting lines. etc All of this against a back-drop of ICUs at 90% capacity, record numbers of new cases, mobile morgues, medical staff at hospitals so depleted and exhausted that they are getting help from FEMA professionals.

It's truly a tale of 2 cities. One struggling to stay viable, economically, and the other struggling to stay viable, medically.

(12-15-2020 11:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So the Pelosi comment is only partially germane, if you’re talking about not letting the crisis go to waste. But it ignores that one round of funding occurred and that the House passed a Bill that sat in the Senate and that Reps equally were immovable on their need to have employer liability coverage. It wasn’t like the Reps were throwing the kitchen sink at Pelosi and she wasn’t moving.

This isn't really accurate Lad... and you've now said it twice.

The bill that passed the house did NOT 'sit' in the Senate. A Senate version was produced including the protections you speak of (otherwise, how do you know of them) and the committee it was assigned to (which has members from both parties on it) recognized that the priorities of the two versions were $1.4 trillion dollars apart. Passing the Senate version would be pointless, so they essentially SKIPPED that part and went to the house to negotiate the differences.

The house passed a 2.4 trillion dollar bill. The Senate (for any purpose that matters) passed one at around $1 trillion. The differences were too vast to negotiate in conference... so the President and SecTres got involved directly with the House and Senate... and the Senate version was eventually upped to around $2 trillion... Meanwhile the house version remained at $2.4 trillion. This is what the media reported. This is not 'one side' claiming this, but the press.

Bottom line is that the right pretty obviously negotiated, but Pelosi stuck to her $2.4 trillion. I can't find a report of one single area where she was willing to compromise. Not some 'we would consider that' sort of comment, but a report from the press where Pelosi (as part of the negotiation) came off of her initial $2.4 trillion dollar request. If you can, please present it and I will be more informed.

I can certainly show you numerous articles where the Senate version went from around 1 trillion to 1.4 trillion to 1.8 (or 9) trillion, and the House side stayed at $2.4. Yes, they continued to insist on protections, but they almost DOUBLED the money approved. Pelosi seems to have not negotiated on anything. Again, please feel free to enlighten me with an article that says, Pelosi reduced her version to $2.2 trillion or something

(12-15-2020 01:58 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  Trying to stay a little more data driven here, and a little less political...

Countries that can impose a true "lockdown" have been a lot more successful in controlling the virus, eg., New Zealand, Australia, S. Korea, Taiwan, Japan etc. They have more pliable populations, more experience with threatening viral illness (SARS) and, frankly, a better and more developed safety-net for business when they go into true lock-down mode.

I suspect our less pliable population is more at the root of the matter than most people recognize. It is also the thing that progressives -- in all decades, in all countries -- hate most. The fact that it is perhaps America's defining characteristic only makes it more hateful.