Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    16,982
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Dankles
    Newest Member
    Dankles
    Joined

Coronavirus


Chicago Storm
 Share

Recommended Posts

There seem to be regular headlines stating that the overwhelming number of new covid hospitalizations are unvaccinated individuals.

The specific numbers should be reported, every day. Just like they report the number of cases daily for the past year, it should be.

1. Number of new cases if possible report fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated and unvaccinated as sub-groups of the new cases

2. Number of new hospitalizations including the number fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated and the number unvaccinated

3. New deaths - fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated  and unvaccinated

 

The CDC is gathering this data but it's voluntarily reported so not exactly a full picture - more for surveillance purposes to identify if there's a cluster that might indicate a concerning new variant - https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/breakthrough-cases.html

 

The hard data may be powerful enough to move some skeptics across the line to finally choose to protect themselves. I'm not sure if this data is being collected at scale though.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jonger said:

You're right, it's a business...and that's why they charge a premium to higher risk drivers and that applies to people not wearing a helmet.

Also, insurance might have a solid case for not paying out if it's found the rider isn't wearing a helmet when the accident occured.

And what about the people who answer “yes” to “do you wear a helmet when you ride” when they don’t? I’m sure it’s not an insignificant number, since there’s no way to enforce that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, mattb65 said:

There seem to be regular headlines stating that the overwhelming number of new covid hospitalizations are unvaccinated individuals.

The specific numbers should be reported, every day. Just like they report the number of cases daily for the past year, it should be.

1. Number of new cases if possible report fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated and unvaccinated as sub-groups of the new cases

2. Number of new hospitalizations including the number fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated and the number unvaccinated

3. New deaths - fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated  and unvaccinated

 

The CDC is gathering this data but it's voluntarily reported so not exactly a full picture - more for surveillance purposes to identify if there's a cluster that might indicate a concerning new variant - https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/breakthrough-cases.html

 

The hard data may be powerful enough to move some skeptics across the line to finally choose to protect themselves. I'm not sure if this data is being collected at scale though.

What I find ridiculous is some people are trying to make it sound as if it's still just as risky for unvaccinated people now as it was several months ago when Covid levels were much higher. It's simple common sense that the unvaccinated are now at lower risk of coming into contact with the virus, now that Covid  has gone down to a much lower level. Obviously this is a tactic to try to get people to get vaccinated, the way that they're trying to mislead people into thinking the risk is just as high even though Covid has gone way down. If you're in a high vaccination state where there's only a small amount of Covid around, then of course it's much safer for unvaccinated people. Of course the risk isn't zero, but it's much lower. This isn't to say that people shouldn't still get vaccinated, but it's funny how they're trying to fool unvaccinated people into thinking it's just as risky now for them as it was when the pandemic was at its worst. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Hoosier said:

I wouldn't have necessarily picked Missouri to be seeing the biggest rise right now, but here we are.  Cases have risen about 75% there in a relatively short period of time, though we are still talking about numbers in the hundreds per day and not thousands.

Yeah, headlines like "cases up 75%" which lack context relative to overall numbers (and currently mortality rates) are pretty meaningless. Same goes for "x variant found in y location". These are just headlines designed to grab readers attention even though the information by itself isn't that important, IMHO. 

Regarding the risk thing above, I agree. My state of Mass is averaging ~50 cases/day out of 6 million people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dan11295 said:

Yeah, headlines like "cases up 75%" which lack context relative to overall numbers (and currently mortality rates) are pretty meaningless. Same goes for "x variant found in y location". These are just headlines designed to grab readers attention even though the information by itself isn't that important, IMHO. 

The way the media is covering this, you'd never know that Covid cases in the US are close to the lowest they've been during the pandemic. Obviously they love to sensationalize to get people to tune in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, winterwx21 said:

What I find ridiculous is some people are trying to make it sound as if it's still just as risky for unvaccinated people now as it was several months ago when Covid levels were much higher. It's simple common sense that the unvaccinated are now at lower risk of coming into contact with the virus, now that Covid  has gone down to a much lower level. Obviously this is a tactic to try to get people to get vaccinated, the way that they're trying to mislead people into thinking the risk is just as high even though Covid has gone way down. If you're in a high vaccination state where there's only a small amount of Covid around, then of course it's much safer for unvaccinated people. Of course the risk isn't zero, but it's much lower. This isn't to say that people shouldn't still get vaccinated, but it's funny how they're trying to fool unvaccinated people into thinking it's just as risky now for them as it was when the pandemic was at its worst. 

Yeah, contracting covid now is currently a lower probability for everybody compared to a few months ago, vaccinated or not.  But for someone who does catch it now, they shouldn't expect to fare better than they would have a few months ago unless their vaccination status has changed during that time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, winterwx21 said:

What I find ridiculous is some people are trying to make it sound as if it's still just as risky for unvaccinated people now as it was several months ago when Covid levels were much higher. It's simple common sense that the unvaccinated are now at lower risk of coming into contact with the virus, now that Covid  has gone down to a much lower level. Obviously this is a tactic to try to get people to get vaccinated, the way that they're trying to mislead people into thinking the risk is just as high even though Covid has gone way down. If you're in a high vaccination state where there's only a small amount of Covid around, then of course it's much safer for unvaccinated people. Of course the risk isn't zero, but it's much lower. This isn't to say that people shouldn't still get vaccinated, but it's funny how they're trying to fool unvaccinated people into thinking it's just as risky now for them as it was when the pandemic was at its worst. 

If anyone is trying to use scare tactics to get people vaccinated at this point then they are a fool. 

The people who haven't been vaccinated yet are either hardcore against vaccination and fully bought in to some form of false information that is immovable and not worth investing time to discuss, or they are skeptical and have outstanding questions on the safety and efficacy. 

The significant number of skeptical people who have reasonable worries that the vaccines were discovered and tested in record time and are still under EUA instead of full approval. I think presenting the facts may be helpful for these individuals.  The data doesn't need any editorializing, it speaks for itself. 

 

Your point about virus prevalence is fair, but prevalence will constantly change and is influenced by the local circumstances.  There are a lot of communities with vaccine rates less than 40% where any vaccine introduction of these more transmissible variants will lead to a localized high risk situation often without warning. We are in the seasonal low point for the virus, it'll start rising again as we go into fall. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, schoeppeya said:

Man, you seem like a miserable human. I feel for you. 
 

To your point though, pandemics over so I’ll go ahead and leave y’all to talk about how scary the world is and how mean people are.

Don't threaten us with a good time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hoosier said:

schoeppeya has always given me DavidK vibes for some reason.  Kind of a similar style.

Probably is that idiot, we all know he has made multiple accounts to troll here because he has nothing exciting going on.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the past few weeks, I have started dining in at restaurants and going to the movies again (hadn't been since the start of the pandemic last year) without a mask on. Even went to the casino a couple times and got a haircut.

That said, I do still wear masks if I'm shopping inside of a store or at the drive thru window. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Powerball said:

In the past few weeks, I have started dining in at restaurants and going to the movies again (hadn't been since the start of the pandemic last year) without a mask on. Even went to the casino a couple times and got a haircut.

That said, I do still wear masks if I'm shopping inside of a store or at the drive thru window. 

How does this even make sense ? You don't wear a mask  inside but wear a mask outside through a drive thru . LOL

State of emergency for NY is officially over per Cuomo.  Full capacity attendance at Madison Square Garden starting soon. 

  • Haha 1
  • Weenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MJO812 said:

How does this even make sense ? You don't wear a mask  inside but wear a mask outside through a drive thru . LOL

State of emergency for NY is officially over per Cuomo.  Full capacity attendance at Madison Square Garden starting soon. 

But is it a matter of whether or not it makes sense? Is another person’s decision to wear a mask somewhere affecting you in any way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was really surprised when I came across this info this morning, since most experts think the Covid vaccines are pretty safe overall. Dr. Robert Malone, the actual inventor of MRNA technology, doesn't feel that the MRNA vaccine benefits outweight the risks for young people. He says the government isn't being transparent about the risks, since there has been no long term study and data on the MRNA vaccines. He talked about how he and other doctors warned the FDA that Covid spike protein could travel from the injection site and cause adverse events. He says because of these spike proteins, people are going to have to be watched for autoimmune issues in the 2 to 3 years after getting vaccinated -- something that should have happened in studies, but of course wasn't done because the vaccine had to be rushed. Dr. Malone also talked about how after vaccination, lipid nanoparticles settle into the ovaries, bone marrow and lymph nodes in large concentrations. Because of that he says people are going to have to be watched for things like leukemia and lymphomas in the years after vaccination. Again, something that is supposed to be watched in animal studies and long term clinical trials, but was not done because the vaccine had to be rushed. Here are a couple links...

https://fyi.com/news/unreported/mrna-vaccine-inventor-says-the-risk-of-covid-shots-for-young-adults-outweighs-the-benefits/

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/mrna-technology-covid-vaccine-lipid-nanoparticles-accumulate-ovaries/

If this was some crazy anti vaccine doctor, I would have dismissed this right away. But this is actually the doctor that invented MRNA technology that's saying this stuff. He took the vaccine himself. It seems as if he is of the opinion that Covid is such an immediate threat to people that are older and people that have underlying conditions that the vaccine is worth the risk for those groups, but it's not worth the risk for younger healthy people due to not knowing if things like autoimmune diseases and cancer could happen in the years after vaccination. I really don't know what to think about this. It's hard to believe the MRNA vaccine could really be this much of a threat to longer term health since so many experts seem very confident that it's safe, but again this is actually the doctor that created MRNA technology that's voicing these concerns. So this really makes me wonder if the spike proteins and lipid nanoparticles could pose a threat since there are no long term studies. Interested in opinions here, especially from mattb65 since he's a doctor that we respect and has added a lot of good info to this thread here. Hopefully this is nothing to be concerned about, but I just wonder why the MRNA inventor would be so concerned about this if it wasn't a legitimate concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, winterwx21 said:

I was really surprised when I came across this info this morning, since most experts think the Covid vaccines are pretty safe overall. Dr. Robert Malone, the actual inventor of MRNA technology, doesn't feel that the MRNA vaccine benefits outweight the risks for young people. He says the government isn't being transparent about the risks, since there has been no long term study and data on the MRNA vaccines. He talked about how he and other doctors warned the FDA that Covid spike protein could travel from the injection site and cause adverse events. He says because of these spike proteins, people are going to have to be watched for autoimmune issues in the 2 to 3 years after getting vaccinated -- something that should have happened in studies, but of course wasn't done because the vaccine had to be rushed. Dr. Malone also talked about how after vaccination, lipid nanoparticles settle into the ovaries, bone marrow and lymph nodes in large concentrations. Because of that he says people are going to have to be watched for things like leukemia and lymphomas in the years after vaccination. Again, something that is supposed to be watched in animal studies and long term clinical trials, but was not done because the vaccine had to be rushed. Here are a couple links...

https://fyi.com/news/unreported/mrna-vaccine-inventor-says-the-risk-of-covid-shots-for-young-adults-outweighs-the-benefits/

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/mrna-technology-covid-vaccine-lipid-nanoparticles-accumulate-ovaries/

If this was some crazy anti vaccine doctor, I would have dismissed this right away. But this is actually the doctor that invented MRNA technology that's saying this stuff. He took the vaccine himself. It seems as if he is of the opinion that Covid is such an immediate threat to people that are older and people that have underlying conditions that the vaccine is worth the risk for those groups, but it's not worth the risk for younger healthy people due to not knowing if things like autoimmune diseases and cancer could happen in the years after vaccination. I really don't know what to think about this. It's hard to believe the MRNA vaccine could really be this much of a threat to longer term health since so many experts seem very confident that it's safe, but again this is actually the doctor that created MRNA technology that's voicing these concerns. So this really makes me wonder if the spike proteins and lipid nanoparticles could pose a threat since there are no long term studies. Interested in opinions here, especially from mattb65 since he's a doctor that we respect and has added a lot of good info to this thread here. Hopefully this is nothing to be concerned about, but I just wonder why the MRNA inventor would be so concerned about this if it wasn't a legitimate concern.

the first like is from some conservative pseudo news site the second link is from Robert F Kennedy Jrs crazy anti vax website.   That's all you need to know.

 

Also it's been disputed if Robert Malone actually invented mRNA technology.  The only references I've seen to that have been on pseudo news sites and then it looks like Tucker Carlson picked it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, madwx said:

the first like is from some conservative pseudo news site the second link is from Robert F Kennedy Jrs crazy anti vax website.   That's all you need to know.

 

Also it's been disputed if Robert Malone actually invented mRNA technology.  The only references I've seen to that have been on pseudo news sites and then it looks like Tucker Carlson picked it up.

Here is Dr. Robert Malone's bio...

https://www.rwmalonemd.com/about-us

Obviously he is legit. An internationally recognized scientist.  I just wonder why he's so concerned about the vaccine. I don't care if that is an anti vaccine site. I care about whether or not his opinion on this should be taken seriously, since he is an expert in this area and created MRNA technology.

 

  • Weenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, winterwx21 said:

I was really surprised when I came across this info this morning, since most experts think the Covid vaccines are pretty safe overall. Dr. Robert Malone, the actual inventor of MRNA technology, doesn't feel that the MRNA vaccine benefits outweight the risks for young people. He says the government isn't being transparent about the risks, since there has been no long term study and data on the MRNA vaccines. He talked about how he and other doctors warned the FDA that Covid spike protein could travel from the injection site and cause adverse events. He says because of these spike proteins, people are going to have to be watched for autoimmune issues in the 2 to 3 years after getting vaccinated -- something that should have happened in studies, but of course wasn't done because the vaccine had to be rushed. Dr. Malone also talked about how after vaccination, lipid nanoparticles settle into the ovaries, bone marrow and lymph nodes in large concentrations. Because of that he says people are going to have to be watched for things like leukemia and lymphomas in the years after vaccination. Again, something that is supposed to be watched in animal studies and long term clinical trials, but was not done because the vaccine had to be rushed. Here are a couple links...

https://fyi.com/news/unreported/mrna-vaccine-inventor-says-the-risk-of-covid-shots-for-young-adults-outweighs-the-benefits/

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/mrna-technology-covid-vaccine-lipid-nanoparticles-accumulate-ovaries/

If this was some crazy anti vaccine doctor, I would have dismissed this right away. But this is actually the doctor that invented MRNA technology that's saying this stuff. He took the vaccine himself. It seems as if he is of the opinion that Covid is such an immediate threat to people that are older and people that have underlying conditions that the vaccine is worth the risk for those groups, but it's not worth the risk for younger healthy people due to not knowing if things like autoimmune diseases and cancer could happen in the years after vaccination. I really don't know what to think about this. It's hard to believe the MRNA vaccine could really be this much of a threat to longer term health since so many experts seem very confident that it's safe, but again this is actually the doctor that created MRNA technology that's voicing these concerns. So this really makes me wonder if the spike proteins and lipid nanoparticles could pose a threat since there are no long term studies. Interested in opinions here, especially from mattb65 since he's a doctor that we respect and has added a lot of good info to this thread here. Hopefully this is nothing to be concerned about, but I just wonder why the MRNA inventor would be so concerned about this if it wasn't a legitimate concern.

Re: the second link, I pulled this statement directly from The Defender’s website:

Entrenched power centers have politicized, hijacked and openly censored science, hobbling authentic debate over critical issues including vaccines, 5G, glyphosate and other pesticides, climate change, water quality, fluoride and chronic disease.

 

need I say more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, winterwx21 said:

Here is Dr. Robert Malone's bio...

https://www.rwmalonemd.com/about-us

Obviously he is legit. An internationally recognized scientist.  I just wonder why he's so concerned about the vaccine. I don't care if that is an anti vaccine site. I care about whether or not his opinion on this should be taken seriously, since he is an expert in this area and created MRNA technology.

 

If his opinion is being promoted by a source so far into the lunatic fringe as The Defender, that says enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, winterwx21 said:

Here is Dr. Robert Malone's bio...

https://www.rwmalonemd.com/about-us

Obviously he is legit. An internationally recognized scientist.  I just wonder why he's so concerned about the vaccine. I don't care if that is an anti vaccine site. I care about whether or not his opinion on this should be taken seriously, since he is an expert in this area and created MRNA technology.

 

That website and bio reads of someone who had a falling out with fellow researchers and now has an axe to grind.   He may have been involved in the development of mRNA technology but to claim him as the creator of it seems disingenuous.  People have been researching mRNA since the mid 70s.    

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-vaccine-cytotoxic/fact-check-covid-19-vaccines-are-not-cytotoxic-idUSL2N2O01XP

Here is him also in a podcast episode claiming that the vaccines are cytotoxic(which they aren't).   

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TimB84 said:

If his opinion is being promoted by a source so far into the lunatic fringe as The Defender, that says enough.

That's really what I want to know. Is Dr. Robert Malone a nutcase that shouldn't be taken seriously? Hopefully that's the case, but he seems like a legitimate doctor/scientist that is internationally recognized for his work. So it's odd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, madwx said:

That website and bio reads of someone who had a falling out with fellow researchers and now has an axe to grind.   He may have been involved in the development of mRNA technology but to claim him as the creator of it seems disingenuous.  People have been researching mRNA since the mid 70s.    

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-vaccine-cytotoxic/fact-check-covid-19-vaccines-are-not-cytotoxic-idUSL2N2O01XP

Here is him also in a podcast episode claiming that the vaccines are cytotoxic(which they aren't).   

I'm glad a couple of you guys seem convinced that he's a nutcase. Since there is no long term safety data on the vaccine, I'm certainly hoping he's way off with his concerns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, winterwx21 said:

That's really what I want to know. Is Dr. Robert Malone a nutcase that shouldn't be taken seriously? Hopefully that's the case, but he seems like a legitimate doctor/scientist that is internationally recognized for his work. So it's odd.

Haven’t had time to do much of the reading yet, but is it possible that his opinions on the matter are being taken out of context and molded to fit an agenda?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TimB84 said:

Haven’t had time to do much of the reading yet, but is it possible that his opinions on the matter are being taken out of context and molded to fit an agenda?

This is all stuff that he said in a 3 hour podcast that youtube deleted. He doesn't seem to be completely against the vaccine, since he took it himself and is only going as far as saying the benefits don't outweight the risks for healthy young people. Hopefully his concerns about spike proteins and lipid nanoparticles possibly causing longer term problems with not come true. He didn't say they WILL come true. He just says we don't know because the proper longer term studies were not done. And of course we know they couldn't be done because Covid was such an emergency.

My opinion really isn't changed. I believe the Covid vaccine benefits outweight the risks for most adults in this country, since the majority have conditions that make them vulnerable to severe Covid. But for young healthy people I'm fine with weighing the benefits and risks, and making a decision to not get vaccinated can be considered reasonable if you're at low Covid risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, winterwx21 said:

This is all stuff that he said in a 3 hour podcast that youtube deleted.

I know that is claim is being passed around on the internet but the link i posted above has a clip from said podcast and there is at least one more clip from that episode up on youtube.   Also it looks like the podcast that hosts it never posts full episodes on youtube, just clips, so I think that's a fake story that is being drummed up to foster the "muh views are being silenced" theory.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, winterwx21 said:

This is all stuff that he said in a 3 hour podcast that youtube deleted. He doesn't seem to be completely against the vaccine, since he took it himself and is only going as far as saying the benefits don't outweight the risks for healthy young people. Hopefully his concerns about spike proteins and lipid nanoparticles possibly causing longer term problems with not come true. He didn't say they WILL come true. He just says we don't know because the proper longer term studies were not done. And of course we know they couldn't be done because Covid was such an emergency.

My opinion really isn't changed. I believe the Covid vaccine benefits outweight the risks for most adults in this country, since the majority have conditions that make them vulnerable to severe Covid. But for young healthy people I'm fine with weighing the benefits and risks, and making a decision to not get vaccinated can be considered reasonable if you're at low Covid risk.

I think it's an interesting moral argument about whether we should be using many millions of vaccine doses on kids in this country or sending those doses to countries who are way behind on vaccinating their adult population.  We alone wouldn't solve the world's problem of lagging vaccinations, but it would help. 

There is the link between the vaccines and heart inflammation in younger people, and the risk of bad outcomes from covid is less as you get younger and younger.  Who's to say there won't be a higher incidence of heart inflammation from the vaccine in kids under 12?  I know they are giving a lower dose in trial to that age group, so maybe that will make a difference or maybe it won't.  I wonder if different doses were tried in the 12-17 age group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, winterwx21 said:

Here is Dr. Robert Malone's bio...

https://www.rwmalonemd.com/about-us

Obviously he is legit. An internationally recognized scientist.  I just wonder why he's so concerned about the vaccine. I don't care if that is an anti vaccine site. I care about whether or not his opinion on this should be taken seriously, since he is an expert in this area and created MRNA technology.

 

I can personally say that my cellphone coverage has improved immensely since my 2nd dose

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Hoosier said:

I think it's an interesting moral argument about whether we should be using many millions of vaccine doses on kids in this country or sending those doses to countries who are way behind on vaccinating their adult population.  We alone wouldn't solve the world's problem of lagging vaccinations, but it would help. 

There is the link between the vaccines and heart inflammation in younger people, and the risk of bad outcomes from covid is less as you get younger and younger.  Who's to say there won't be a higher incidence of heart inflammation from the vaccine in kids under 12?  I know they are giving a lower dose in trial to that age group, so maybe that will make a difference or maybe it won't.  I wonder if different doses were tried in the 12-17 age group.

I definitely agree. We're seeing more and more heart inflammation cases. They all haven't been confirmed, but there have been over 1200 reports in the United States. This isn't an insignificant amount, and who knows if the incidence will increase or if it will be greater in even younger children. There are other countries that are only giving children 1 dose or are not giving any at all due to these heart inflammation concerns.

I certainly understand why these vaccines were rushed. It was a true emergency. But I find it disturbing that some people shame people that are choosing to not take the vaccine. There are enough safety concerns, especially due to the lack of long term study, that it can be considered reasonable to decide to not take the vaccine if you're at low covid risk. And I certainly would not dismiss the fact that the doctor (Robert Malone) that at least had a major hand in developing MRNA technology is concerned about long term safety enough that he doesn't recommend the vaccine for young people. It's obvious why health authorities and the media would want to downplay what he says, since everyone wants the pandemic overwith as soon as possible. But his concerns certainly could be valid.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...