Allen HS coach dies from COVID

[SteaminWillieBeamin]

Just now, greenminer said:

but being aware of these claims and talking about them is exactly how we fight them, no?

Just muting them without discourse gives them their own little sustainable world to feel comfy in.

I get what you're saying, though.  I don't have an end-all solution.

I mean - asking "what do you think about Robert Malone?" is different than posting his twitter feed. People scrolling an easily just see that and continue on without reading a wall of text or a link to an article about him that will take 30 minutes to read. So the BS gets out easier than the debunking - which is what Wakefield suffers from. 

[greenminer]

Think I read a bit back about a Stanford study that said misinformation can spread as much as 10x faster than the truth.

A google search brought up some good stuff.  It might be in here

http://web.stanford.edu/~gentzkow/research/fake-news-trends.pdf

 

Quote

Although the political process has a long history of misinformation and popular misperceptions, misinformation on social media has caused widespread alarm in recent years (Flynn et al. 2017; Lazer et al. 2018). A substantial number of U.S. adults were exposed to false stories prior to the 2016 election, and post-election surveys suggest that many people who read these stories believed them to be true (Allcott and Gentzkow 2017; Guess et al. 2018). Many argue that false stories played a major role in the 2016 election (for example, Parkinson 2016; Gunther et al. 2018), and in the ongoing political divisions and crises that have followed it (for example, Spohr 2017; Azzimonti and Fernandes 2018). In response, Facebook and other social media companies have made a range of algorithmic and policy changes to limit the spread of false content. In the appendix, we list twelve announcements by Facebook and five by Twitter aimed at reducing the circulation of misinformation on their platforms since the 2016 election.

HOW FAKE NEWS SPREADS LIKE A REAL VIRUS

 

[TheColonyEagle]

1 hour ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

""Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine—but no infection parties, please""
 

EDIT:  I bet the point of view above is only subscribed to by less than 1% of physicians, and those physicians are who we would refer to normally as "quacks".    I'd also be willing to bet he's in someone's pocket.

Well hold your horses there…..I’m not defending this guy. I don’t even know who he is, but as for past infections and natural immunity, they are still studying the long term antibody and immunity response for those that have had COVID. This article was out today:

https://apple.news/ASE64loaiRJSUS-D9M1Ub0A

and for the record I’m not anti-vaccine 

Edited August 27, 2021 by TheColonyEagle

[SteaminWillieBeamin]

12 minutes ago, TheColonyEagle said:

Well hold your horses there…..I’m not defending this guy. I don’t even know who he is, but as for past infections and natural immunity, they are still studying the long term antibody and immunity response for those that have had COVID. This article was out today:

https://apple.news/ASE64loaiRJSUS-D9M1Ub0A

and for the record I’m not anti-vaccine 

His point was - even if the 'natural' antibodies are better - the risks of GETTING Covid naturally is not a reasonable thing to risk. We cannot have 3 million people die and overrun all our medical systems to get to the natural immunity for a single strain over the next 5 years. That is not reasonable. 

Also the fortune article has this: "

The data was posted as a preprint article on medRxiv, and hasn’t yet been reviewed by other researchers. "

Edited August 27, 2021 by SteaminWillieBeamin

[Mean Green Matt]

51 minutes ago, greenminer said:

but being aware of these claims and talking about them is exactly how we fight them, no?

Just muting them without discourse gives them their own little sustainable world to feel comfy in.

I get what you're saying, though.  I don't have an end-all solution.

I’m certainly no psychologist, but it’s a bit of a double edged sword. I think any kind of censorship and/or content control over thoughts and ideas (even in the name of combating “misinformation” - a term which is unfortunately it’s own special quagmire) actually feeds those thoughts and ideas because it’s easily portrayed as “THEY are censoring it because THEY don’t want you to know the truth”. 

[MeanGreenTexan]

6 minutes ago, TheColonyEagle said:

Well hold your horses there…..I’m not defending this guy. I don’t even know who he is, but as for past infections and natural immunity, they are still studying the long term antibody and immunity response for those that have had COVID. This article was out today:

https://apple.news/ASE64loaiRJSUS-D9M1Ub0A

and for the record I’m not anti-vaccine 

These are absolutely critical studies.    However, this dude is going all-in on (paraphrasing): "...if you get Covid & come through, your immune response to a following Coronavirus encounter will be better than that of one who only had the vaccine."

While this may be true (we'll have to see what the studies you're citing, as in multiple, conclude at a later date), I can pretty much point to any hospital's ICU in America and tell you that someone with a vaccine is 90-93% less likely to end up there than someone without the vaccine.   

And until you have the virus at least once, you'll never know how your body will handle it.    Why risk that?   The guy in the thread title likely knew several friends/family that got the virus and came through with little-to-no effects.   He rolled the dice, with his chin up high, and lost.   This is needless.

[TheColonyEagle]

7 minutes ago, SteaminWillieBeamin said:

His point was - even if the 'natural' antibodies are better - the risks of GETTING Covid naturally is not a reasonable thing to risk. We cannot have 3 million people die and overrun all our medical systems to get to the natural immunity for a single strain over the next 5 years. That is not reasonable. 

Also the fortune article has this: "

The data was posted as a preprint article on medRxiv, and hasn’t yet been reviewed by other researchers. " Don’t disagree with you.  I was coming at it from the viewpoint of someone that had had and revived from Covid. (I haven’t but I know people that have)

I don’t disagree with you but I was coming at this from the viewpoint of someone who has had and recovered from COVID. (I haven’t but I know people that have) Should they get the vaccine?
I don’t think that’s settled…

[TheColonyEagle]

2 minutes ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

These are absolutely critical studies.    However, this dude is going all-in on (paraphrasing): "...if you get Covid & come through, your immune response to a following Coronavirus encounter will be better than that of one who only had the vaccine."

While this may be true (we'll have to see what the studies you're citing, as in multiple, conclude at a later date), I can pretty much point to any hospital's ICU in America and tell you that someone with a vaccine is 90-93% less likely to end up there than someone without the vaccine.   

And until you have the virus at least once, you'll never know how your body will handle it.    Why risk that?   The guy in the thread title likely knew several friends/family that got the virus and came through with little-to-no effects.   He rolled the dice, with his chin up high, and lost.   This is needless.

I’ll tell you what would be a good data point…..how many of the hospitalized are first time Covid positives? 
 

If 97% of them are first timers, then that would match the vaccinated hospitalized numbers. And the argument could be made……

[SteaminWillieBeamin]

4 minutes ago, TheColonyEagle said:

I’ll tell you what would be a good data point…..how many of the hospitalized are first time Covid positives? 
 

If 97% of them are first timers, then that would match the vaccinated hospitalized numbers. And the argument could be made……

Is your wanting to know this different data point to prove that vaccines don't work? I think you are throwing noise into the machine just for the sake of it. The numbers of the vaccine trials match what is seen in the real world with hospitals (regardless of first timers)

[TheColonyEagle]

Just now, SteaminWillieBeamin said:

Is your wanting to know this different data point to prove that vaccines don't work? I think you are throwing noise into the machine just for the sake of it. The numbers of the vaccine trials match what is seen in the real world with hospitals (regardless of first timers)

I’m not trying to prove vaccines don’t work. Never said that. 
 

According to all the data we currently have they obviously do. 
 

Having natural immunity keep you out of the hospital from covid doesn’t mean vaccines don’t work. 
 

 

[TheColonyEagle]

This sort of gets to the point made earlier about being weary of “just asking the question” and the subsequent dismissal of anything that comes after  

It seems to me that if natural immunity can give you just as much if not more (per the article I posted) protection why wouldn’t we want to explore that? So I “asked the question” and then immediately was met with I’m “trying to prove vaccines don’t work” and that’s not what I did at all. I firmly believe they DO work. 

FYI, when you respond like that it seems like you’re defending a narrative, defending group think vs a sincere, curious question. Why are we not allowed to question anything anymore? We actually DON’T know the long term effects of the vaccine because we haven’t had it long enough. If I had recovered from Covid I would probably pause before I got the vaccine…..because why put something unknown in my body if it’s possibly not necessary? 
 

And by the way I am nearly fully VACCINATED. Getting my second shot next week.  I actually changed my mind on it once I did to my own personal risk/reward assessment and got enough data to make my personal decision. 

[MeanGreenTexan]

Just now, TheColonyEagle said:

I don’t disagree with you but I was coming at this from the viewpoint of someone who has had and recovered from COVID. (I haven’t but I know people that have) Should they get the vaccine?
I don’t think that’s settled…

Great question!  That would be another interesting research point that I would like to see numbers on.

Of the # of people in the ICU's, how many of them had the virus before with few effects, only to wind up in their current ICU-state after the 2nd, 3rd?, 4th? etc... time?


I think (and this is just me spitballing, and trying to logic through it), that if the CDC is recommending 'boosters' to those who have taken the vaccine before, that even someone with a natural immune response (re: antibodies) would also benefit from a 'booster' that the vaccine could provide... especially if it's been a year or more since that person has had it.   Maybe not.

Generally, viruses will toe a fine line between virility (how strong/deadly is it?) VS communicability (how easily can it multiply?)   
If virility is low, but communicability is high, you get things like the common cold.
If virility is high, but communicability is low, you get things like Ebola.
Find a "sweet spot", and you get things like the Flu & possibly this virus, which has proven to be worse than the flu.
The Delta variant has most-certainly proven to increase communicability.   I dunno if it decreased virility in order to maintain the balance it prefers, I would think/hope that's likely.


PS:   A lot of y'all are probably thinking, "What the heck qualifies this idiot to say this stuff with such conviction?"
I'll have you know that part of my superior schooling at the University of North Texas was taking a FANTASTIC Immunology class with Dr. Goven, and Microbiology & Medical Bacteriology (which also touched briefly on viruses) with Dr. O'Donovan (RIP).    I'm not an expert by any means, but my foundation is SOLID.  I'm not just googling stuff.

[SteaminWillieBeamin]

1 hour ago, TheColonyEagle said:

This sort of gets to the point made earlier about being weary of “just asking the question” and the subsequent dismissal of anything that comes after  

It seems to me that if natural immunity can give you just as much if not more (per the article I posted) protection why wouldn’t we want to explore that? So I “asked the question” and then immediately was met with I’m “trying to prove vaccines don’t work” and that’s not what I did at all. I firmly believe they DO work. 

FYI, when you respond like that it seems like you’re defending a narrative, defending group think vs a sincere, curious question. Why are we not allowed to question anything anymore? We actually DON’T know the long term effects of the vaccine because we haven’t had it long enough. If I had recovered from Covid I would probably pause before I got the vaccine…..because why put something unknown in my body if it’s possibly not necessary? 
 

And by the way I am nearly fully VACCINATED. Getting my second shot next week.  I actually changed my mind on it once I did to my own personal risk/reward assessment and got enough data to make my personal decision. 

I don't get it. I am not defending a narrative. I was asking what the point of your question was... I clearly ASKED the intention of your question and what you wanted to gain. You were not met with accusations. I asked another question back. 

As to 'natural immunity' - researchers have/are looking at a natural based vaccine, but some diseases are incredibly difficult to do that with (TB, HIV, common cold - which is a COVID strain). "Asking the question" is great, unless it is implying the decision is binary and that a mere question invalidates the already correct answer. If you get what I am saying.  

You are obviously "allowed" to ask questions. That is an absurd response that you and one other person likes to try to claim. Throwing evidence at "just asking questions" is accused of group think or "shouting down" opinions.. It's crazy talk. Though I am not calling you crazy. I am also allowed to ask questions. 

We do know the long term effects of mRNA treatments in the living body.
We do know what a "vaccine" is. 
We do know the data of comorbidities in the deceased.
We do know most of this stuff - it is just needing to point it out and make is consumable. 

Me pointing this out is not shouting you down. 

BTW - the hospital system up the road from here is paying a maintenance man to continually spray the oxygen pipes with water to keep them from freezing. The amount of oxygen being pulled is freezing up the system. Secondarily to that, if the growth of patients continues at the rate of this week - this hospital will run out of oxygen and that would be immensely and immediately tragic. This is the case for many local hospitals. 

Edited August 27, 2021 by SteaminWillieBeamin

[TheColonyEagle]

I see the high percentage of hospitalizations coming from unvaccinated folks as a pretty good indicator that vaccines keep you safe from Covid. 

If they were to gather one more data point and discover the same percentage of hospitalizations are coming from first timers...couldn't we come to the same conclusion about natural immunity?

That's all I'm saying. And why aren't we getting that info?

It seems like that would be a pretty easy bit of information to gather from patients. The answers would be VERY important.

[SteaminWillieBeamin]

29 minutes ago, TheColonyEagle said:

That's all I'm saying. And why aren't we getting that info?

It seems like that would be a pretty easy bit of information to gather from patients. The answers would be VERY important.

1. The study is out there somewhere. There are absolutely studying the re-infection rate and severity of people that get covid again. There are a lot of articles written about how you can get covid again and that they are finding typical infections are milder, but hospitalizations are possible. Also - there are studying how long the antibodies remain. If it is only for 90 days, then reinfecting yourself is not very practical, nor wise.  Study after study shows that a very significant portion of people that had medium to heavy reactions to covid have lasting effects (a year later). 

2. I must be dense, because I don't see what is so important about it. We already know that unvaccinated people (or those without some 'natural immunity') are overwhelming our health system. We already know that the average age of death is 58 years old. We already know that you cannot predict how YOUR body will react to covid. So we know that covid parties are not going to the be the answer.  Therefore - why would it be so important to know - since we can't actually DO anything when you have the data? That is what I am missing. 

My pointing out the dire state our our hospitals is only to show how the natural immunity course is not sustainable. There is a reason we don't let kids have pox parties anymore. 

 

[greenminer]

Isn't pursuing natural immunity a path that puts you through the pains and repercussions of the first exposure?

[SteaminWillieBeamin]

Here is one current (reviewed) study from Kentucky with re-infection rates of post-covid versus vaccinated individuals.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm

Among Kentucky residents infected with SARS-CoV-2 in 2020, vaccination status of those reinfected during May–June 2021 was compared with that of residents who were not reinfected. In this case-control study, being unvaccinated was associated with 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with being fully vaccinated.

...
...

These findings suggest that among persons with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, full vaccination provides additional protection against reinfection. Among previously infected Kentucky residents, those who were not vaccinated were more than twice as likely to be reinfected compared with those with full vaccination. All eligible persons should be offered vaccination, including those with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, to reduce their risk for future infection.

==========

And then there are studies showing that your chance of getting covid are decreased (but not as much as the vaccine as shown above) but if you do, the symptoms are milder:

Previous COVID-19 may cut risk of reinfection 84%

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/04/previous-covid-19-may-cut-risk-reinfection-84


====

Study: Half of COVID-19 survivors have at least 1 symptom a year later

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/08/study-half-covid-19-survivors-have-least-1-symptom-year-later
 

Edited August 27, 2021 by SteaminWillieBeamin

[TheColonyEagle]

29 minutes ago, greenminer said:

Isn't pursuing natural immunity a path that puts you through the pains and repercussions of the first exposure?

I’m not talking about “pursuing” a path. And I’m certainly not talking about “covid parties.” That’s foolish. 
 

There are millions of people that have had and recovered from covid. Is it necessary for them to get vaccinated? Should a company require them to get vaccinated?

That’s what I’m asking. 

I’m not saying everyone go get COVID.

I’ve never had it. I don’t want it. So I’m getting vaccinated. 

[SteaminWillieBeamin]

Now you've told us the why! Interesting question.. 

Unless there's a way to prove immunity, I don't see a way around it. The studies I've read at still very up in the air on duration of immunity and reinfection rate. With the vaccine it is more reliable to study and predict new strain coverage and duration. Definitely there's always going to be vaccine requirement for certain jobs, that's not going to change (schools, hospitals, international travel..)

But if this is about the bottom line, the more you're sick and out of the office, the less they can make money off your employment - sounds like the market to me. I don't see companies requiring vaccines unless it's about the money, they don't really care about your health. YMMV.

I, personally, don't mind if offices make in person workers need vaccinations. I'd still require it after a person had covid because of the limited studies showing it still provides MORE protection. That's just my take.

[greenminer]

32 minutes ago, TheColonyEagle said:

There are millions of people that have had and recovered from covid. Is it necessary for them to get vaccinated? Should a company require them to get vaccinated?

Thanks.  perfectly valid question.

[Cr1028]

I encourage each and every one of you, vaccinated or not, to participate in the Texas CARES Antibody study. It is a great free way to check your antibody status presently and over time.

https://sph.uth.edu/projects/texascares/

Edited August 28, 2021 by Cr1028

[Cr1028]

4 hours ago, greenminer said:

Isn't pursuing natural immunity a path that puts you through the pains and repercussions of the first exposure?

I received natural immunity asymptomatically. I don’t want to be forced to receive an injection I don’t need. I may need it at some point in the future but I don’t want to be forced to keep a job or to have certain freedoms when I already have achieved the protective intention of the vaccine without it.

[SteaminWillieBeamin]

5 minutes ago, Cr1028 said:

I received natural immunity asymptomatically. I don’t want to be forced to receive an injection I don’t need. I may need it at some point in the future but I don’t want to be forced to keep a job or to have certain freedoms when I already have achieved the protective intention of the vaccine without it.

That's great that you are doing the Texas CARES - great way to track you immunity. Do they give you a card of some sort?  Like an oil change reminder when to come back?

 

[Cr1028]

4 minutes ago, SteaminWillieBeamin said:

That's great that you are doing the Texas CARES - great way to track you immunity. Do they give you a card of some sort?  Like an oil change reminder when to come back?

Thank you and sort of. It is a bit more modernized than that. You’ll receive a text message, possibly an email if that is your preference but I don’t recall. I just know I get the texts. This survey was big in my vaccination decision, if I had tested negative for antibodies, I fully intended to get vaccinated immediately thereafter. The coaches and cops dying finally got my attention enough to stop dragging my feet.

Edited August 28, 2021 by Cr1028

[SteaminWillieBeamin]

6 minutes ago, Cr1028 said:

Thank you and sort of. It is a bit more modernized than that. You’ll receive a text message, possibly an email if that is your preference but I don’t recall. I just know I get the texts. This survey was big in my vaccination decision, if I had tested negative for antibodies, I fully intended to get vaccinated immediately thereafter. The coaches and cops dying finally got my attention enough to stop dragging my feet.

I think your decision is spot on, for real. If I caught the covid and had antibodies, it would give me pause too. I THINK I would ultimately get the vaccine ... and definitely when the requirements kicked it, I would. But, it would definitely give you space to make the decision in a more laid back situation. That's great. I hope the UNTLifer and the other non-vaxxers do this study. The more information the better.