Update on Team vaccination rates

Status
Not open for further replies.

JP Hochbaum

Well-known member
Joined:
May 22, 2012
Posts:
2,040
Liked Posts:
1,279
I feel like I am address cult members here.

Yes, I question Fauci. Because he is human and has been contradictory. That doesn't mean is evil or wrong all the time. It means he is human and not infallible.

Again, the long term effects of the vaccine are not fully known. There may or may not be affects down the road. In a small portion of the populace there were short term affects that had to have disclaimers after the fact.

There may never be long term side effects and that would be great.

I am not trying to convince anyone based on my opinion to either take or not take the vaccine. All I am telling you is why I don't think some football players are taking it. They are in a low risk group, for the most part. If I were in a low risk group I wouldn't take it either.
A cult requires not allowing contradicting information into an "in group".

What contradicting info have you provided besides your opinion that it hasn't seen long term effect yet? Which we have been seeing, since it has been a year since the initial testing phase was done on people.

You typically want to see long term effects on things when doses are continuous, but they are not needed when the doses are one or two times.

So asking to wait for long term effects is just not a thing here.
 

modo

Based
Donator
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
29,514
Liked Posts:
24,036
Location:
USA
A cult requires not allowing contradicting information into an "in group".

What contradicting info have you provided besides your opinion that it hasn't seen long term effect yet? Which we have been seeing, since it has been a year since the initial testing phase was done on people.

You typically want to see long term effects on things when doses are continuous, but they are not needed when the doses are one or two times.

So asking to wait for long term effects is just not a thing here.

It is the stance that no one should be allowed to question Fauci at all. As if anything he says must be taken as gospel. That's the cult. Fauci is a human being that has contradicted himself both publicly and privately. He is human and he should be questioned. Yes he has expertise, but he is not infallible.

I have never stated that we need to wait to see long term effects. I stated we won't know if there will be long term effects because this is a relatively new field, but the risk may truly be minimal.

All this is in relation to football players. That was the point of this thread. Not an all encompassing COVID debate.

My hypothesis about football players, which I have stated already, is that they are not in a high risk group. They have seen other players get COVID and make it thru with no problems. The vaccine was politicized before and after the election by both parties. So yes I can understand why people would be naturally apprehensive about taking it.

I've had COVID and I made it thru just fine. For my PERSONNAL point of view if I were not in a high risk group I would not have taken the shot.

And the long game talk that is starting to creep in is that the COVID shot will be a yearly thing, not a one and done thing.
 

Nelly

Well-known member
Joined:
Mar 13, 2018
Posts:
6,989
Liked Posts:
8,073
I wonder if the NFL will stick to the 85% threshold rate when just about only 50% of the general population has taken it.
 

Discus fish salesman

Well-known member
Joined:
Mar 31, 2018
Posts:
15,202
Liked Posts:
19,590
I wonder if the NFL will stick to the 85% threshold rate when just about only 50% of the general population has taken it.
Whats the general population have to do with that goal? That goal has a purpose of creating a safer bubble for the teams. 50% doesn't really help anything
 

Nelly

Well-known member
Joined:
Mar 13, 2018
Posts:
6,989
Liked Posts:
8,073
Whats the general population have to do with that goal? That goal has a purpose of creating a safer bubble for the teams. 50% doesn't really help anything
It's a matter of "safer according to who." Apparently 50% of the people in America don't think it'll make them any safer to get it, so I'm just wondering if the NFL would back up off the 85% number as a result. After all, the general population is their target audience.
 

modo

Based
Donator
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
29,514
Liked Posts:
24,036
Location:
USA
It's a matter of "safer according to who." Apparently 50% of the people in America don't think it'll make them any safer to get it, so I'm just wondering if the NFL would back up off the 85% number as a result. After all, the general population is their target audience.
The NFL pulled the number out of their ass because it sounds good...Its a nice round high percentage. There is nothing special about 85%......You'd think if it was an exact science it would be something like 83.4% or 87.2%.

The NFL had to set some target of what they were shooting for. If demographics hold true compared to the US the number the NFL is at is not unexpected only about 36% of Blacks in the US are choosing to get vacc'ed. The NFL is 68% Black 29% White and the rest are Hispanic/Asian and other.

I don't think we have the numbers on what percentage of each deom in the NFL is getting vacc'ed however so No way to be sure. But if you compare gen pop races vs NFL races then the NFL is vaccing at a higher rate than US gen pop based on race.
 

Discus fish salesman

Well-known member
Joined:
Mar 31, 2018
Posts:
15,202
Liked Posts:
19,590
It's a matter of "safer according to who." Apparently 50% of the people in America don't think it'll make them any safer to get it, so I'm just wondering if the NFL would back up off the 85% number as a result. After all, the general population is their target audience.
I would think most people's contention isn't that they would be less safe immediately, but moreso lack of certainty in the long term.

Nfl players are making millions with huge risk for long term issues from concussions anyway, so the nfl has every right to press immediate health concerns since players that continue to play have basically said money is more important than my long term health
 

Nelly

Well-known member
Joined:
Mar 13, 2018
Posts:
6,989
Liked Posts:
8,073
Nfl players are making millions with huge risk for long term issues from concussions anyway, so the nfl has every right to press immediate health concerns since players that continue to play have basically said money is more important than my long term health
Goes back to what I said about safety, and according to who. IMO, getting the "vaccine" is A LOT more dangerous for my health than not getting it, so I'm not. If someone wants to get it then good for them. I feel bad for the players who don't want it because their union agreed to the NFL's draconian measures for those who refuse it.
 

Enasic

Who are the brain police?
Joined:
Mar 17, 2014
Posts:
13,786
Liked Posts:
9,576
A cult requires not allowing contradicting information into an "in group".

What contradicting info have you provided besides your opinion that it hasn't seen long term effect yet? Which we have been seeing, since it has been a year since the initial testing phase was done on people.

You typically want to see long term effects on things when doses are continuous, but they are not needed when the doses are one or two times.

So asking to wait for long term effects is just not a thing here.
Long term effects are absolutely a thing and other biologists disagree with your stance. Dr. Malone went over the short and long term effects that he’s concerned about and has also addressed them with the FDA. The unfortunate reality here is that this has all been politicized from both sides and the public isn’t getting all relevant and objective information and data.
 

xer0h0ur

HS Referee HoF
Donator
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
22,260
Liked Posts:
17,856
Location:
Chicago, IL.
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago White Sox
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
Why would @xer0h0ur do that when he can just regurgitate lines for OAN? I have to assume the hit and run posting is more fun for him.



Not that I would expect retards would research anything on their own.
 

modo

Based
Donator
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
29,514
Liked Posts:
24,036
Location:
USA
Which teams have the most SEC players?
Actually the SEC states are doing pretty well with black vaccination. Half the SEC states are in the top 10 for Black vaccination percentages in the US by state.

Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, South Carolina, Georgia, and Arkansas
 

Milky

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Aug 14, 2010
Posts:
3,372
Liked Posts:
3,226
Actually the SEC states are doing pretty well with black vaccination. Half the SEC states are in the top 10 for Black vaccination percentages in the US by state.

Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, South Carolina, Georgia, and Arkansas
% wise or raw numbers?
 

modo

Based
Donator
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
29,514
Liked Posts:
24,036
Location:
USA
% wise or raw numbers?
percent

For example, Mississippi has 37% Black vaccination population in the state. It is second in the nation.

Dated July 6
 

Gustavus Adolphus

?‍♂️?
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '20
Joined:
Jun 15, 2010
Posts:
45,381
Liked Posts:
34,598
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago White Sox
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Nebraska Cornhuskers
  2. Villanova Wildcats
percent

For example, Mississippi has 37% Black vaccination population in the state. It is second in the nation.

Dated July 6
37% ain’t something to get excited about.
 

Bearly

Dissed membered
Donator
Joined:
Aug 17, 2011
Posts:
42,987
Liked Posts:
23,215
Location:
Palatine, IL
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks



Not that I would expect retards would research anything on their own.
When the footnote becomes main theme? This is where you cherry pick or misinterpret science but refuse to follow the advice of the very people you quoted.

The conclusions, literally the last paragraphs:

“Any virus is going to try to keep changing, so it can continue to spread. For COVID-19, that means we’ll likely see more new variants. That’s natural and expected. Don’t be too worried about it, the vaccine should help keep us safe. But, that’s why it’s so important for experts to work together around the world to track the COVID-19 variants. It’s also important for you to continue doing your part by getting the COVID-19 vaccine,” Dr. Best says.

"HARRIS: Bieniasz says, to slow this evolutionary process as much as possible, it's important to slow the spread of the virus right now so people who get vaccinated are at lower risk for getting infected in the first place."


It's a call to arms and to stop the lollygagging and outright nonconformity. No free lunches but they can be affordable if you follow the rules and follow the advice.

So far, the early more lethal variants have originated Britain, South Africa, India and Brazil before the vax was available in those areas until we got this new US variant that, surprisingly, originated in a low vaxed areas. I am not disputing what you posted but you need to take all info in context and when you point to an expert opinion as fact, you should also follow their informed recommendations.

Proliferation is a far greater threat for variant that is the vaccine. The mechanism is similar and to acknowledge that is good science. Your immune system responds and if you don't conquer it quickly, you will generate more mutations. The British variant is thought to have come from a critical patient that hung on for an extended period due to repeated life saving measures. The mechanism is effectively the same but 2 important aspects are missed here. If you have the vaccine or a previous bout of Covid, your prognosis is pretty great if you get infected and the transmitted viral load generally lower and for some effectively nil.

To say the vax could spurn variants like the disease does is nothing close to a good reason to sit on your hands. It's a virus, they mutate but having antibodies to an earlier version tends to offer some protection from future ones, just like the flu. The idea is to slow the proliferation in general to prevent more variants and the vaccine is actually a great tool for that. Why both articles strongly recommended getting it.

You just posted 2 articles that gave good reason for the vax with strong recommendations to do so yet are trying to twist science to your will. Doesn't work that way. They are smart people when they tell you about viral propagation and they continue to be smart when they tell you the best way to counter it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top