Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Government Response To The Coronavirus


James Daulton

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Alex P Keaton said:

Most people likely have a number that equates to the odds of dying in a car crash.  That's probably one of the biggest gambles most people take each day.

roughly 1:107, or 0.93%

The Case Fatality Rate for COVID in the US is currently 1.79%.  Now, that number is heavily skewed by demographics but all odds are.  The math our stealthy friend was using above is faulty - he is looking at the entire population of the US and all COVID fatalities. That's not appropriate because the number of fatalities is not locked - it will continue to increase in perpetuity (there is no way for it to go down).  Ironically, that number would be FAR higher if not for the vaccines that our friend chooses not to take.

The 1.79% number is odds of dying once you get the disease.  You would have to multiply by the probability of catching it first to get the aggregate odds of dying, and that number drops as more and more people are vaccinated.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Navin Johnson said:

There were only 42060 car deaths last year, considerably less than the number of covid deaths, even after omitting the elderly

Last year wasn’t a fair comparison, because people drove a lot less last year than in a normal year.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

oh it existed - they've played with it for 30 years now

I thought you'd read up on all of it ? 

I would rather not take a new type of vaccine that's never before been used on people. No thank you. I don't want an injection of anything that makes my body react in any certain ways that injection directs it to

understand I do not take medication or drugs. I am one of the few who isn't on drugs of some kind. I don't do illegal drugs, I've never smoked or did drugs. 

I had ACL surgery patella tendon graph and I took medication for 3 days and then threw the rest away. Once I got a pretty good staph infection and took something. I rarely take an aspirin even

So I'm very very anti-drug  -  you can understand maybe how a brand new way of vaccinating humans wouldn't exactly go with my belief system, right ?

So not wanting to take Mrna one I can understand, I had the Pfizer so obviously I disagree, but can see the logic.

So wouldn't the J&J one work for you then if newer technology is what worries you? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Stealthycat said:

possibly 

 

 

Just had that thought as I have a good friend that feels a lot like you do, so he waited for the J&J to be available in central Arkansas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, moleculo said:

roughly 1:107, or 0.93%

The Case Fatality Rate for COVID in the US is currently 1.79%.  Now, that number is heavily skewed by demographics but all odds are.  The math our stealthy friend was using above is faulty - he is looking at the entire population of the US and all COVID fatalities. That's not appropriate because the number of fatalities is not locked - it will continue to increase in perpetuity (there is no way for it to go down).  Ironically, that number would be FAR higher if not for the vaccines that our friend chooses not to take.

The 1.79% number is odds of dying once you get the disease.  You would have to multiply by the probability of catching it first to get the aggregate odds of dying, and that number drops as more and more people are vaccinated.

The other issue is that this whole approach only considers death as the only negative outcome of Covid.   It's not binary.   It can cause non-fatal organ damage, including to your heart, lungs and brain, as well as a host of other problems.   We do know these problems persist, but we don't know how long or how prevalent they may be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

I've answered your questions - you just don't like them

no you haven't.....again "reply" <> "answer".  But I get it....I've asked enough.  Hopefully one day something quells your fear of whatever it is you are scared of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Bogeys said:

Just had that thought as I have a good friend that feels a lot like you do, so he waited for the J&J to be available in central Arkansas

What exactly is HIS logic on this?  Typically, people are concerned with the ingredients of a vaccine.  J&J is the only one that has things like ethanol and the like.  The others are a combo of things already living in your body or been in your body many times over the course of your life.  mRNA alterations aren't new (via a vax they are of course).  Does he just not understand how they work mechanically?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Navin Johnson said:

I mean, logically, they should have been down, but an 8% increase is a real head scratcher. 

Yeah, as an insurance guy, it has been an industry-wide head scratcher.  But really, it is as simple as more speeding = more death.

Traffic jams lead to more accidents, but less severe accidents (ie fewer deaths).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Alex P Keaton said:

Yeah, as an insurance guy, it has been an industry-wide head scratcher.  But really, it is as simple as more speeding = more death.

Traffic jams lead to more accidents, but less severe accidents (ie fewer deaths).

Around here they took drunk driving patrols off the road.   They probably shouldn't have announced that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Commish said:

What exactly is HIS logic on this?  Typically, people are concerned with the ingredients of a vaccine.  J&J is the only one that has things like ethanol and the like.  The others are a combo of things already living in your body or been in your body many times over the course of your life.  mRNA alterations aren't new (via a vax they are of course).  Does he just not understand how they work mechanically?  

Don't know, never asked.  I could guess, but that is all it would be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, The Commish said:

no you haven't.....again "reply" <> "answer".  But I get it....I've asked enough.  Hopefully one day something quells your fear of whatever it is you are scared of.

https://www.foxnews.com/health/cdc-panel-covid-19-vaccination-rare-heart-issues

"Number of observed reports among those aged 16-24 exceeded the expected"

I thought "they" knew what was to be expected?

Exceeding expectations means they didn't really know for sure which of course they didn't / don't

 

If you don't see my point of view on that, on the unknowns with a new way of vaccinating where nobody knows the long term effects, that's ok. 

It is amazing to watch the bullying and pressuring and name calling that is happening. The very people who normally say don't do those things are doing them because they so desperately want the people who disagree with them to do what they want them to do, even if it means forcing them.

I wonder if we had a poll, and the question was "should we force people to get vaccinated"

I bet it would be a higher % of yes than we got on banning tobacco

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

https://www.foxnews.com/health/cdc-panel-covid-19-vaccination-rare-heart-issues

"Number of observed reports among those aged 16-24 exceeded the expected"

I thought "they" knew what was to be expected?

Exceeding expectations means they didn't really know for sure which of course they didn't / don't

 

If you don't see my point of view on that, on the unknowns with a new way of vaccinating where nobody knows the long term effects, that's ok. 

It is amazing to watch the bullying and pressuring and name calling that is happening. The very people who normally say don't do those things are doing them because they so desperately want the people who disagree with them to do what they want them to do, even if it means forcing them.

I wonder if we had a poll, and the question was "should we force people to get vaccinated"

I bet it would be a higher % of yes than we got on banning tobacco

 

 

 

Please stop quoting me when your posts have nothing to do with what you're quoting.  To the bold, no, that's not what it means.  It means they expected X and the reality went above X....that's what "exceeds" means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Commish said:

To the bold, no, that's not what it means.  It means they expected X and the reality went above X....that's what "exceeds" means.

hmmmm

so what would have to happen in your views that would make you question these vaccines? anything ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

hmmmm

so what would have to happen in your views that would make you question these vaccines? anything ?

I questioned them at the very beginning.  I was firmly in the "not a chance I am taking this" camp through Oct/Nov last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

So what would have to happen in your views that would make you question these vaccines? anything ?

If the vaccines failed any of their safety or efficacy trials ... then I'd question them.

...

The "rare heart issues" make for alarming copy, but the percentage experiencing these issues is still vanishingly small -- per your Fox link, 275/~12,000,000 among 16-24 yo males, or 0.0023%. And of that 0.0023%, 81% have their heart inflammation clear quickly (per same link) and a higher percentage still is released to home care to await passing of symptoms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Doug B said:

If the vaccines failed any of their safety or efficacy trials ... then I'd question them.

...

The "rare heart issues" make for alarming copy, but the percentage experiencing these issues is still vanishingly small -- per your Fox link, 275/~12,000,000 among 16-24 yo males, or 0.0023%. And of that 0.0023%, 81% have their heart inflammation clear quickly (per same link) and a higher percentage still is released to home care to await passing of symptoms.

Moleculo would say that % is still a gamble ...

Safety and efficacy trials .... are covid vaccines FDA approved yet? I don't think they are ... they're still under the EUA right ?

These vaccines were given EUA status which bypassed most of the steps needed for FDA approval - emergency use. So safety and trials etc were bypassed to some extent and degree

 

I don't think there are high % of wrongs that come with these vaccines. For my body, I just don't want it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Stealthycat said:

So safety and trials etc were bypassed to some extent and degree

*** Not for Stealthycat, but for anyone on the sidelines of the discussion: ***
 

The quoted is not correct. From Emergency Use Authorization for Vaccines Explained (FDA.gov):

Quote

 

Are the COVID-19 vaccines rigorously tested?

Yes. Clinical trials are evaluating investigational COVID-19 vaccines in tens of thousands of study participants to generate the scientific data and other information needed by FDA to determine safety and effectiveness. These clinical trials are being conducted according to the rigorous standards set forth by the FDA.

Initially, in phase 1, the vaccine is given to a small number of generally healthy people to assess its safety at increasing doses and to gain early information about how well the vaccine works to induce an immune response in people. In the absence of safety concerns from phase 1 studies, phase 2 studies include more people, where various dosages are tested on hundreds of people with typically varying health statuses and from different demographic groups, in randomized-controlled studies. These studies provide additional safety information on common short-term side effects and risks, examine the relationship between the dose administered and the immune response, and may provide initial information regarding the effectiveness of the vaccine. In phase 3, the vaccine is generally administered to thousands of people in randomized, controlled studies involving broad demographic groups (i.e., the population intended for use of the vaccine) and generates critical information on effectiveness and additional important safety data. This phase provides additional information about the immune response in people who receive the vaccine compared to those who receive a control, such as a placebo.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Doug B said:

If the vaccines failed any of their safety or efficacy trials ... then I'd question them.

...

The "rare heart issues" make for alarming copy, but the percentage experiencing these issues is still vanishingly small -- per your Fox link, 275/~12,000,000 among 16-24 yo males, or 0.0023%. And of that 0.0023%, 81% have their heart inflammation clear quickly (per same link) and a higher percentage still is released to home care to await passing of symptoms.

We've had multiple vaccines of the past (the old version with all the chemicals and toxic crap) that rendered the same results, see smallpox as an example.  Inflammation is a concern for sure, but it's not a new concern.  If you've had a vaccine ever before, this sort of issue is one you accepted with that vaccine.  So my question to those who are inconsistent on that front would be, "if you weren't concerned with it before, why are you concerned with it now?"

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

Safety and efficacy trials .... are covid vaccines FDA approved yet? I don't think they are ... they're still under the EUA right ?

IMHO, it's all academic -- all three current-EUA vaccines are going to moonwalk to full approval before long. Additionally, I don't regard EUA as an illegitimate or corner-cutting authorization. "Approval", where the FDA is involved, does have a narrow and specific procedural meaning but IMHO it's not the same meaning as the laymen's meaning of "approval". Not having FDA approval but having an EUA does not constitute an illegitimate, halfway, or bogus status for the vaccines. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Inflammation is a concern for sure, but it's not a new concern.

And in a way, it's no worse than a wash between a COVID infection and a vaccination -- COVID can cause myocarditis in young males as well. Likely at a higher rate than the vaccine, though still a rare outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but mow much myocarditis is going unreported because the vaccinated person doesn't know?  Since we can't answer that question, we have too many unknowns.  We should wait 10 more years to see if these unreported issues crop up.  Plus, we get the added benefit of a deadly virus rampaging through vulnerable populations.  Since I'm not vulnerable, this is the best course of action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Doug B said:
53 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Inflammation is a concern for sure, but it's not a new concern.

And in a way, it's no worse than a wash between a COVID infection and a vaccination -- COVID can cause myocarditis in young males as well. Likely at a higher rate than the vaccine, though still a rare outcome.

Dying from vaccine is a lower % than dying from COVID, but to some that doesn't matter.  I won't get a meaningful answer to my question.  Just adding to the list of things that make little sense in the conversation.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forget what you think personally, this is pretty hard to argue with:

Quote

I don't get it either. I know the virus was politicized but as far as I know, pretty much every US politician, including Trump, has gotten the vaccine. If I've learned anything in my life it's that if the rich and politicians from both US political parties are in a line, you want to be in that ####### line.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

Forget what you think personally, this is pretty hard to argue with:

Quote

I don't get it either. I know the virus was politicized but as far as I know, pretty much every US politician, including Trump, has gotten the vaccine. If I've learned anything in my life it's that if the rich and politicians from both US political parties are in a line, you want to be in that ####### line.

 

That doesn't address the potentially different cost/benefit analysis among children and exceedingly healthy young adults (notably professional athletes) vs. the middle-aged and older.

Please don't take this to mean that I am necessarily supporting the non-vaccination of such demographics; just that that particular line of thinking espoused doesn't logically preclude some of the resistance arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

Forget what you think personally, this is pretty hard to argue with:

Quote

I don't get it either. I know the virus was politicized but as far as I know, pretty much every US politician, including Trump, has gotten the vaccine. If I've learned anything in my life it's that if the rich and politicians from both US political parties are in a line, you want to be in that ####### line.

I think even more persuasive is that 96% of doctors are vaccinated.  With that said, I couldn’t find data on the percentage of doctors vaccinating their own kids, that might be even more useful.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

I think even more persuasive is that 96% of doctors are vaccinated.  With that said, I couldn’t find data on the percentage of doctors vaccinating their own kids, that might be even more useful.

Doctors are "experts" who went to college for a long time, so you know they can't be trusted.

Rich people and politicians (redundant!) are self-serving and always looking out for #1.

Edited by Dinsy Ejotuz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, tonydead said:

Now that we've all tossed our masks into the trash, flooding the landfills and oceans for no good reason, let's move on and get rid of all these silly plexiglass barriers already. 

I will ignore your trolling first comment - but onto the second.

My wife works in the world of recycling and trash. Her organization has done incredible work in re-homing a lot of the plexiglass that some retailers have already decided are no longer necessary. She has found artists and universities and other organizations who have a need for what is not a cheap product.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now we know some numbers for side effects in kids:

Quote

The CDC tracked more than 1,200 cases of myocarditis, which is inflammation of the heart muscle, and pericarditis, which is inflammation of the outer lining of the heart. More than 800 of the cases occurred after the second dose, and 65% were linked to the Pfizer vaccine. The largest share of the cases occurred in men under the age of 24, according to the report. 

I love the spin:

Quote

Symptoms of myocarditis include chest pains, heart palpitations and shortness of breath. But despite the risks of the condition, a new CDC report estimates the vaccines could prevent 5,700 COVID-19 cases and as many as 215 hospitalizations among boys aged 12-17, noting that the benefits of vaccinating that age group "still clearly outweigh the risks." 

Yea, no. 1200 cases of myocarditis to prevent 215 hospitalizations... :lmao:  wtf.  ~300 kids died from Covid in its entirety.  So by my math, in the couple months of kids getting vaccines already ~4 times more cases of heart problems than covid deaths, and 6 times more cases than hospitalization for covid it might prevent (like any parent isn't taking their kid to the emergency room for chest pain and shortness of breath?).  

Yep - I'm good with my kids staying put at 1 shot.  :thumbup:

Edited by matuski
english mother effer
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, matuski said:

Now we know some numbers for side effects in kids:

I love the spin:

Yea, no. 1200 cases of myocarditis to prevent 215 hospitalizations... :lmao:  wtf.  ~300 kids died from Covid in its entirety.  So by my math, in the couple months of kids getting vaccines already ~4 times more cases of heart problems than covid deaths, and 6 times more cases than hospitalization for covid (like any parent isn't taking their kid to the emergency room for chest pain and shortness of breath?).  

Yep - I'm good with my kids staying put at 1 shot.  :thumbup:

Yeah I see zero reason for my 12 year old to take the vaccine. Unlike adults, the reward does not outweigh the risk. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, matuski said:

Now we know some numbers for side effects in kids:

I love the spin:

Yea, no. 1200 cases of myocarditis to prevent 215 hospitalizations... :lmao:  wtf.  ~300 kids died from Covid in its entirety.  So by my math, in the couple months of kids getting vaccines already ~4 times more cases of heart problems than covid deaths, and 6 times more cases than hospitalization for covid it might prevent (like any parent isn't taking their kid to the emergency room for chest pain and shortness of breath?).  

Yep - I'm good with my kids staying put at 1 shot.  :thumbup:

I heard somewhere that the WHO in the dark of night updated their website changing the recommendations for people under 18 getting the vaccine.  Too lazy to look it up.  How is that not front page news?

That's nice, all these governors pushing the 70% vaccine rate in their states including everyone over age of 12.  And wanting everyone to get the vaccine before going back to school.  It's going to be painful for them to walk that back.

Edited by tonydead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, tonydead said:

I heard somewhere that the WHO in the dark of night updated their website changing the recommendations for people under 18 getting the vaccine.  Too lazy to look it up.  How is that not front page news?

That's nice, all these governors pushing the 70% vaccine rate in their states including everyone over age of 12.  And wanting everyone to get the vaccine before going back to school.  It's going to be painful for them to walk that back.

The WHO logic (prioritizing adults over kids) is intended for countries where vaccines are scarce, so I get that, but it demonstrates again that children are simply lower (WAY WAY lower) risk than adults where covid is concerned.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eventually, researchers will likely establish that one dose for children is sufficient or that the doses should be smaller or more spread out in time. Or maybe just not using mRNA vaccines on kids. Something like that. I don't think simply "not vaccinating kids against COVID" will be the answer in the end.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, matuski said:

The WHO logic (prioritizing adults over kids) is intended for countries where vaccines are scarce, so I get that, but it demonstrates again that children are simply lower (WAY WAY lower) risk than adults where covid is concerned.

Damnit, now you're making me look it up.  They added this:

Quote

“More evidence is needed on the use of the different COVID-19 vaccines in children to be able to make general recommendations on vaccinating children against COVID-19”

Which some people are suggesting means the best course of action is to wait to have children vaccinated.  Because a) minimal risk anyway and b) possible side effects that could out weigh the minimal risk they would be mitigating by getting the vaccine.

Edited by tonydead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tonydead said:

Which some people are suggesting means the best course of action is to wait to have children vaccinated.  Because a) minimal risk anyway and b) possible side effects that could possibly out weigh the minimal risk they would be mitigating by getting the vaccine.

What the dogma is shaming people over for the last couple months.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, matuski said:

Yea, no. 1200 cases of myocarditis to prevent 215 hospitalizations

215 COVID hospitalizations  among boys 12-17

1200 cases of myocarditis among people of all ages (see pages 17-18). Age range of those reporting this side effect was 12 years old to 94 years old (pg 18).

You comparison was not apples to apples. Here's further reading which links to the source (linked above) of the spreading-like-wildfire "1200 cases of myocarditis" number.

 

Edited by Doug B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Ok.  From your link, WHO's official response back to PolitiFact

Quote

 

"Children and adolescents tend to have milder disease compared to adults, so unless they are part of a group at higher risk of severe COVID-19, it is less urgent to vaccinate them than older people, those with chronic health conditions and health workers.

"More evidence is needed on the use of the different COVID-19 vaccines in children to be able to make general recommendations on vaccinating children against COVID-19.

"WHO's Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) has concluded that the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is suitable for use by people aged 12 years and above. Children aged between 12 and 15 who are at high risk may be offered this vaccine alongside other priority groups. Vaccine trials for children are ongoing and WHO will update its recommendations when the evidence or epidemiological situation warrants a change in policy.

"It's important for children to continue to have the recommended childhood vaccines."

 

Note they replied with the exact same language I quoted that you said was a lie.

Regardless, tell me where it says it is necessary to include everyone 12 years and older in our 70% goals and why we need them to be vaccinated before they go back to school.  Because everything I read here says the opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Doug B said:

215 COVID hospitalizations  among boys 12-17

1200 cases of myocarditis among people of all ages (see pages 17-18). Age range of those reporting this side effect was 12 years old to 94 years old (pg 18).

You comparison was not apples to apples. Here's further reading which links to the source (linked above) of the spreading-like-wildfire "1200 cases of myocarditis" number.

 

Thank you.

Fair enough, I'll counter with your own link:

 

Quote

The largest share of the cases occurred in men under the age of 24, according to the report. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, tonydead said:

Ok.  From your link, WHO's official response back to PolitiFact

Note they replied with the exact same language I quoted that you said was a lie.

Regardless, tell me where it says it is necessary to include everyone 12 years and older in our 70% goals and why we need them to be vaccinated before they go back to school.  Because everything I read here says the opposite.

Except for when a child walked into day care with 50+ other kids of teachers and staff of the school district here having Covid causing an unworkable  staffing shortage which shifted all students to remote for a week or so, schools around here were open last school year.  And while hardly a normal year, it mostly worked well enough.   So I'm not going to argue for or against whatever metric local and state governments use to make such determinations as I think that the considerations at play vary too much.  Sorry if your area is one where the schools themselves or the staff or teachers and/or their unions or whatever make the calculus different.

But the lie is what I quoted...

35 minutes ago, tonydead said:

I heard somewhere that the WHO in the dark of night updated their website changing the recommendations for people under 18 getting the vaccine.  Too lazy to look it up.  How is that not front page news?

As far as the quote you shared with the article.  It is likely a stock answer to be found all over the place which further supports that the conclusion that the accusation was false. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Except for when a child walked into day care with 50+ other kids of teachers and staff of the school district here having Covid causing an unworkable  staffing shortage which shifted all students to remote for a week or so, schools around here were open last school year.  And while hardly a normal year, it mostly worked well enough.   So I'm not going to argue for or against whatever metric local and state governments use to make such determinations as I think that the considerations at play vary too much.  Sorry if your area is one where the schools themselves or the staff or teachers and/or their unions or whatever make the calculus different.

But the lie is what I quoted...

As far as the quote you shared with the article.  It is likely a stock answer to be found all over the place which further supports that the conclusion that the accusation was false. 

 

Thanks for the anecdotal.

I understand now that the rumor was a lie that the WHO changed their website language.  In this case it appears to be a good thing because it's brought the fact to many people's attention that vaccinating kids right now isn't following the recommendations.  Governors that are including children over 12 years in their goals for 70% vaccination ought to change that.  Apparently they were as confused as I was.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
  • Create New...