Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Battersbox

Members
  • Posts

    727
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Battersbox

  1. I agree with your statement, save for the bolded. Kids are doing better than our vaccinated parents. So, if you're implying we've reached our acceptable level for a return to normal based upon breakthrough levels being so low for parents (which they are, the vaccines are working), then why would we need to wait for kids to be vaccinated if they are doing even better than that, without vaccinations?
  2. I'm opposing the idea that we should base any decisions about easing restrictions on whether kids under 12 are vax eligible. I think most agree that once all adults (or nearly all) have been vaxxed, we can then ease restrictions because outcomes will improve in terms of mortality, infections, general sickness. If so, then why would we even consider vax eligibility for unvaxxed children under 12 necessary for easing restrictions when children already have the outcomes desired for the adult vaxxed population?
  3. The kids, as a whole, are fine. They are already doing better than the vaccinated adult population, delta or otherwise.
  4. In a vacuum, sure. We don't exist in a vacuum, and as I stated a couple of posts ago, I think we're harming more kids than we're protecting at this point. Too often we simply ignore the wider ramifications of all the things we've tried. Now, the data makes clear that kids are at far less risk than adults, even vaccinated adults. Most of us in here have agreed that if we were more vaccinated among the adult population, we'd return to normal. Well, kids are already at that stated goal from a risk-profile standpoint. Why is it different? This all sucks, and there are trade-offs. I believe bending over backwards (especially for the 99.???% of kids who also have to bend over backwards) is doing more damage than good on an aggregate basis. And to answer your first question: no, of course not. But I haven't seen anything suggesting that 'long covid' or any other damaging effect for kids is any higher than the rate it has been seen in adults.
  5. Well, there have been something like 8k vaccinated adults who have died of Covid. There have been fewer than 500 kids who have died of Covid since this all began. What study do you need?
  6. If we zoom out and focus more on the societal perspective, I think that argues more for easing restrictions rather than the other way around, particularly as it relates to kids/schools. We're placing burdens upon the entire school-age population for something which is less dangerous for them than even for vaccinated adults (data suggests kids under 12 are still safer from Covid than even vaccinated adults). Yes, there are a few kids who are at risk (there always will be), but we're damaging a much greater number of kids who have dropped out, suffered from remote learning (or often non-learning), suffered severe depression, etc.
  7. Excellent post, and I agree the off-ramp is still hard to see. For me (and this will be unpopular I'm sure), we should be on the off-ramp right now. Adults have had ample chance to get the vaccine, and imo we don't need to wait for kids to get vaccines to return to normal. Some in here have suggested that when we are at metrics similar to a rough flu season, that would be the appropriate time to ease all restrictions. Well, for kids, aren't we already at that point? And if so, why is a vaccine for sub 12-year olds even necessary for us to delay easing the remaining restrictions?
  8. These are good recommendations. We've done the first one, many times over. As far as the 2nd, we've not done that. Mostly we've tried to explain to her that if she stays in state, there is a better chance there would be help with grad/law school if she decides to go that route.
  9. I should have been more clear in my post---we have laid it out for her in just that way...and she doesn't fully understand. Part of me expected that, because how can a 17-year old understand what crippling debt is? They can't, not really. We've tried to teach her the value of a dollar, she works a job and makes her own money, etc. But when you're talking about $100k in debt to a 17 year old I just don't think it sinks in. I know it wouldn't have for me at that age.
  10. We've been delving into the college search this summer for my daughter, who is now a senior. She's a great student, naturally bright but not like superstar bright. Still, she's put together what I think is a strong resume to get into probably any school save for the super-elite and probably a few of the 'public ivies'. With that said, we're at a bit of a crossroads right now because to me, University of Illinois is clearly the best option since she's not clear on what she wants to study. She's visited 5 Big 10 schools, and so far her favorite is Wisconsin. The obvious problem is that will cost basically twice as much to send her there for 4 years. My question for those who have gone through this process is: how do you balance desire versus good sense? Illinois vs Wisconsin, all things equal, are equivalent schools. How do I make my 17-year old understand that spending an extra $80k ($100k?) over 4 years to go out of state instead of in-state is wasteful? And I know there are plenty of reasons to pick one school over another, but my feeling is since she really doesn't know where her university life will lead, financial prudence must win out.
  11. Dialogue and further inspection is a right-wing narrative? The results of that study do not imply one should seek out infection. The results do however suggest that those who were infected in the past might benefit from one shot instead of 2. But I guess Topol, Wachter, Gandhi, etc. are all right-wing now since they don't agree with Culdeus' preconceived notions.
  12. This is all true. And it works both ways. I posted an interesting study in here yesterday and you subsequently stamped your feet and implied I was some right-wing troll that wants to post conspiracy theories on FB. Despite the fact that this study has been picked up by several thinkers across the spectrum as something with merit and deserving of further thought. Dialogue is good, even if we have to suffer the crazies.
  13. ok, fair. part of the problem though is with 'x days'...it's far from concrete. As far as more vax than we know what to do with, I would argue we should probably be exporting vaccines to the third world in greater quantities at this point if natural immunity is more robust than formerly believed.
  14. We conducted a retrospective observational study comparing three groups: (1)SARS-CoV-2-naive individuals who received a two-dose regimen of the BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine, (2)previously infected individuals who have not been vaccinated, and (3)previously infected and single dose vaccinated individuals. Doesn't the above mean they did in fact include vaxxed only vs NI?
  15. Yes, I'm not suggesting it's concrete. As a rational person I go with the consensus. But that doesn't mean I'm not interested in where the science might go. It's a shame that so many will seize on anything new that confirms their priors. But, stifling anything that doesn't conform to groupthink is gross as well.
  16. I'm saying we've vaxxed 170m people in this country knowing that many of them have been infected prior. I understand the reasoning for doing so...we wanted to get as many people vaxxed as fast as possible. This study suggests that, at least now, maybe it makes more sense to consider prior infection for those seeking a vaccine.
  17. I agree there is a huge subset of society that will run with any news to cement their priors. Still, my belief is that's a lesser evil than not being entirely truthful and forthcoming as much as possible.
  18. This study could be an argument for consideration about prior infection, which currently is largely disregarded. I agree it shouldn't affect anyone's plan to be vaccinated if they've never been infected. And I'm not saying if someone was infected in the past they shouldn't be vaccinated. What I'm saying is prior infection shouldn't be disregarded out of hand if this study has merit.
  19. Israel is a first-world country. Yes, anti-vax people could seize on this to further their argument, which would be unfortunate at this point imo. It seems as though you feel anything which questions current thinking should be disregarded. I personally like to keep an open mind. That doesn't mean I post to FB or whatever. Grow the eff up.
  20. What does it say then? Formerly, if people got 1 dose of a 2-part MRNA vax, they were considered unvaxxed (and therefore scorned by many). Doesn't this study suggest that's wrong??
  21. I'm not saying people should get the virus instead of the vaccine. But there has been an argument that vax immunity is superior to immunity through infection, and this study suggests that's incorrect. Currently, people are being shamed if they think they shouldn't be vaxxed if they've been infected prior. This study suggests that shaming has been in error.
  22. This study is making the rounds on the Twitters. Several voices using it to suggest the idea that immunity through vaccination is not superior to immunity via infection. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1
  23. Ty, interesting. I would assume most of these positions are on-site inspection, I never would have thought it could be a WFM type gig.
  24. If you don't mind me asking, what kind of business hires folks with this type of training? Big railroads? Airlines? And if so, what's the actual job that is done WFH? I'm intrigued.
×
  • Create New...