Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Will you get a Covid vaccine when available?


gianmarco

Covid vaccine  

451 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, matuski said:

I don't know what you mean by antivaxxer... certainly I can tell you the best surgeon I know has no plans to get vaccinated.  Really has no bearing on his credibility that I can see.

The second best has been vaccinated.  Also has made no difference in his credibility that I can see.

Then I'd let the second best treat me, and I would be happy with my decision.   The "best" has no credibility.   I think you're confusing skill or experience with credibility.   

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

Just now, -fish- said:

Then I'd let the second best treat me, and I would be happy with my decision.   The "best" has no credibility.   I think you're confusing skill or experience with credibility.   

Interesting.  If you asked the second he would tell you the first has more credibility.  He worships the guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, matuski said:

Interesting.  If you asked the second he would tell you the first has more credibility.  He worships the guy.

Again, I don't think you're using the word "credibility" the way people typically use it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, -fish- said:

Again, I don't think you're using the word "credibility" the way people typically use it.  

I'm using it in the way we would use it in the field we are discussing.

A patient choosing a doctor or not based on their vaccine status does not in any way shape or form influence or reflect the credibility of that doctor.

Edited by matuski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's put it this way:  if I was representing a client in a medical malpractice case, I would present a health-care provider's anti-vax position to a jury to attack their credibility.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, matuski said:

I'm using it in the way we would use it in the field we are discussing.

A patient choosing a doctor or not based on their vaccine status does not in any way shape or form influence or reflect the credibility of that doctor.

Yes, it does.   Just like I won't go to an aromatherapist or a witch doctor, I won't go to an anti-vaxxer.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, -fish- said:

Let's put it this way:  if I was representing a client in a medical malpractice case, I would present a health-care provider's anti-vax position to a jury to attack their credibility.    

Does not getting vaccinated mean you are anti-vax? News to me.

Edited by matuski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, matuski said:

Does not getting vaccinated mean you are anti-vax? News to me.

In that case it would make the decision making more questionable.   "I understand the benefit and efficacy of this vaccine, but refuse to take it anyway" is a tough decision to defend, and lacks credibility.   Just like taking one shot of a two shot series, but arbitrarily refusing the second.  The position lacks sound logic, and is therefore not credible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, -fish- said:

In that case it would make the decision making more questionable.   "I understand the benefit and efficacy of this vaccine, but refuse to take it anyway" is a tough decision to defend, and lacks credibility.   Just like taking one shot of a two shot series, but arbitrarily refusing the second.  The position lacks sound logic, and is therefore not credible.

The refusal or inability? to represent the position you are arguing against is astounding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, matuski said:

The refusal or inability? to represent the position you are arguing against is astounding.

Nobody has discussed inability.   Are you now claiming that the doctors you referred to are unable to be vaccinated?  Because that would be completely different than everything you've been saying and obviously different from what's being discussed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, matuski said:

No - they are saying they don't see the risk to themselves or their kids from covid.  For them it is something they have quantified personally over the last year+.  They then take that known (to them) quantity and weigh it versus the vaccine.

If you fear covid, you view it as a risk, you see a larger need for the vaccine.  

If you don't have a fear of it, if you don't view it as a risk, you see less need.  You may even see the small risk of side effects from the vaccine as the greater risk.

I'll be in a procedure where everyone is vaccinated, that same afternoon a case where only one or two in the room are.  Those vaccinated are no more credible than those who are not... they simply came to a different conclusion.

This is what you said.    Are you now claiming that their lack of vaccination was not because of a conclusion they came to, but instead was because of an inability to be vaccinated?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, -fish- said:
1 hour ago, matuski said:

The refusal or inability? to represent the position you are arguing against is astounding.

Nobody has discussed inability.

You're talking past each other a bit here. Matuski is talking about your -- fish's -- refusal/inability to represent the position you're arguing against. Not "inability" as in "unable to get the vaccine".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Doug B said:

You're talking past each other a bit here. Matuski is talking about your -- fish's -- refusal/inability to represent the position you're arguing against. Not "inability" as in "unable to get the vaccine".

We are boat buddies now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Doug B said:

@-fish- , see here to start. Also here: Osteopathic Physicians versus Doctors.

I have my own concerns about DO's.  The point here is that that lady is clearly insane, but is also actively practicing medicine.   As long as whackjobs like her can practice medicine, you can't convince me that refusal to get vaccinated is somehow valid just because a person is trained in medicine.   There are people like Lin Wood and Sidney Powell practicing law; that doesn't mean that their opinions are credible. 

Someone would have to present me with a valid, fact-based argument showing that the risks outweigh the benefits.   At this point, except for persons that have already have Covid or those that have a condition preventing them from being vaccinated, I haven't seen a compelling argument against vaccination, and I'd be wary of a health care professional that refuses to be vaccinated if they otherwise could be.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Doug B said:

You're talking past each other a bit here. Matuski is talking about your -- fish's -- refusal/inability to represent the position you're arguing against. Not "inability" as in "unable to get the vaccine".

I think I was confused by his punctuation.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, matuski said:

We are boat buddies now.

You can disagree with people, even strongly, and still get along with them.   With very few exceptions, I'd sit down and have a beer with just about anyone on these boards.   There are a couple people that I'm pretty sure I wouldn't enjoy spending time with, but they're generally just here to troll anyway.   

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

8 hours ago, matuski said:

I made this comment off the cuff.

I apologize, after a quick googling, I also misrepresented the odds.

Kids are WAY WAY more likely to be victims of gun violence.

Paging @Stealthycat.  Another one that wants to take yur gunz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Z Machine said:

Paging @Stealthycat.  Another one that wants to take yur gunz.

probably so - I've said all along people under 18 rarely rarely get covid - of course assaults with guns would be more likely as would being killed in auto accidents, DUI incidents, suicide, general accidents, ATV's etc etc

perspective based on facts

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, -fish- said:

You can disagree with people, even strongly, and still get along with them.   With very few exceptions, I'd sit down and have a beer with just about anyone on these boards.   There are a couple people that I'm pretty sure I wouldn't enjoy spending time with, but they're generally just here to troll anyway.   

It seems we are in the minority.  It is apparently hard for some people to keep a fantasy football sub forum in perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, -fish- said:

So what about her training are you critical of?  Where she went to school? 

I missed this, but yes.

Even dodging the "is a DO even a doctor" debate.... nobody has ever heard of that school.  And yes, these things matter.  A lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, matuski said:

I missed this, but yes.

Even dodging the "is a DO even a doctor" debate.... nobody has ever heard of that school.  And yes, these things matter.  A lot.

if i'm reading her credentials correctly, that is the first and founding school for DO's.  :shrug: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, [icon] said:

No. Tens Millions of infectious people moving about.. Somewhat unlikely to get in an accident bad enough to be hurt, but still Hundreds of thousands dead. Simple precaution with a miniscule downside apart from trivial discomfort that is proven to all but eliminate risk. 

It's really pretty straightforward: the likelihood of the vaccine preventing serious infection, including death and long term debility + societal benefit in reaching herd immunity more quickly (less illness and death among vulnerable + decreased chance of more virulent/vaccine resistant virus evolving) exceeds the risk of a serious vaccine-related AE and inconvenience posed by vaccination.

It takes no special training to understand those relative risks.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Doug B said:

That's fine. Pinpoint "long term," then. Scratch "pinpoint" -- a ballpark figure is helpful, too.

Do you know anyone personally that is actually waiting for, say, two or three years to pass and then will likely be eager to take the COVID vaccine? Are you quite sure it's not politics/worldview first, politics/worldview second, and then ... "oh yeah, no long term data! ... that's the ticket ..."?

While he's at it, I'd like to know what AEs concern him?  While one can never say never, there's little evidence for serious delayed AEs from any vaccine, nor is there biologic plausibility suggesting mRNA vaccines warrant more scrutiny.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, matuski said:

:lmao:

Having a linear conversation here has never been less possible.

Thanks for taking this tangent... maybe someone else can follow you there.

eta - im gonna go on a limb and suggest I know more people in healthcare.  Many did what you describe.  Many did not and have not.

I know quite a few healthcare workers as well, and @Ilov80s statement is pretty much spot-on for the vast majority. But I'm sure there is a lot of variability based on the type of HCW, where they live and political affiliation, unfortunately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, matuski said:

I missed this, but yes.

Even dodging the "is a DO even a doctor" debate.... nobody has ever heard of that school.  And yes, these things matter.  A lot.

You're right: education does impact one's credibility.  And it seems more educated healthcare professionals favor vaccination:

Quote

The Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation poll shows 35 percent of health-care workers aren’t too confident or aren’t confident at all that the vaccines have been properly tested — a number that’s very similar to the general population. What’s more, 3 in 10 either don’t currently plan to get vaccinated (18 percent) or haven’t yet decided (12 percent). And 1 in 6 says they would actually quit if their employer required them to get vaccinated.

This will undoubtedly be seen by some vaccine skeptics as legitimizing their fears. Even many health-care workers won’t take it, period, or are hesitant. And if even they aren’t convinced?

But it’s worth a closer look at just where the hesitancy comes from.

As The Post’s story notes, health-care workers run the gamut from doctors to hospital staff to caregivers. And the poll shows that those in higher-profile jobs and with more formal education are significantly less skeptical.

...

The biggest gap in the poll, though, is in education.

While 24 percent of those with less than a bachelor’s degree say they don’t plan to get the vaccine, that number is just 11 percent for those with college degrees and just 8 percent for those with postgraduate degrees.

That last one is a reasonable analog for doctors and other top professionals with the most medical knowledge. And of all the demographic groups broken out in the poll, they are the least skeptical of the vaccine. Fully 72 percent of them say they have already gotten at least one dose, and 85 percent have either gotten it or plan to.

I believe you that some (hopefully not many) highly skilled surgeons in Texas don't want the vaccine. 

But I wouldn't value a surgeon's opinion on vaccination much more than a layperson's - they have minimal training in immunology and infectious disease, and probably little contact with covid patients. Cutting and sewing doesn't impart any special vaccination expertise.

Instead, I'd listen to infectious disease practitioners and those who treat/follow infected individuals - especially hospitalists and critical care docs. I don't have nationwide stats on those groups, but anecdotally in Hawaii, almost all favor vaccination.

 

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

Punjab govt decides to block SIM cards of people refusing vaccines (Dawn [Karachi, Pakistan], 6/10/2021)

Quote

 

The Punjab government on Thursday decided to block the SIM cards of people refusing to get vaccinated against the coronavirus, an official said.

The step was among several decisions taken by the provincial government to control the spread of Covid-19 and speed up the vaccination process, including opening walk-in vaccination for all adults from June 12.

...

The decisions come a day after the National Command and Operation Centre (NCOC) announced that coronavirus vaccines will be mandatory for all public- and private-sector employees, and that government employees must be fully vaccinated by June 30.

Among other drastic measures seen in the country to increase the pace of vaccinations, the Sindh government last week issued directions to stop the salaries of government employees who refuse to get themselves vaccinated from July.

 


Wow ... they're not playing around.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're well past a year into this and still having the same conversations. Not judging one side or the other as I support your right to not get a vaccine, just don't think we are ever going to fully come to an agreement on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, beer 30 said:

We're well past a year into this and still having the same conversations. Not judging one side or the other as I support your right to not get a vaccine, just don't think we are ever going to fully come to an agreement on it.

What's amazing to me is that the vaccine has CLEARLY brought a sharp decline in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths and things are opening up as a result and yet there are still those against them in not insignificant numbers.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, gianmarco said:

What's amazing to me is that the vaccine has CLEARLY brought a sharp decline in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths and things are opening up as a result and yet there are still those against them in not insignificant numbers.

They got caught flat footed a little on this and have struggled to adjust.  The talking points were going to be that why take a 60% eff vax to a 99% asymptomatic virus?   

Now that the vax is more or less 100% eff. They have to go with the "wait two years" stuff that they laughed at as "wait two weeks" in an earlier phase of this virus.  It's awesome.  

 

  • Laughing 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Terminalxylem @gianmarco 

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/evidence-grows-stronger-covid-vaccine-link-heart-issue-cdc-says-n1270339

Any insight here?  My mother (who won’t get the vaccine for herself) called me about this as we are deciding what to do now that our 13/15 year olds are eligible.  Is this something to keep an eye on and/or talk to our pediatrician about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

@Terminalxylem @gianmarco 

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/evidence-grows-stronger-covid-vaccine-link-heart-issue-cdc-says-n1270339

Any insight here?  My mother (who won’t get the vaccine for herself) called me about this as we are deciding what to do now that our 13/15 year olds are eligible.  Is this something to keep an eye on and/or talk to our pediatrician about?

That's the first I've heard of it. Certainly something to pay attention to and I'm sure they will start looking at the numbers.

Overall, there are things in that article that just don't make sense. In particular, myocarditis is anything but "usually a mild disease". In fact, it is not very common but unfortunately can be very devastating with a pretty high mortality. So I don't understand where the author of that article got their information but it makes me question the rest of it.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gianmarco said:

Overall, there are things in that article that just don't make sense. In particular, myocarditis is anything but "usually a mild disease". In fact, it is not very common but unfortunately can be very devastating with a pretty high mortality.

If the bolded is true of myocarditis, then the media (or someone) may be misidentifying the specific malady. Or maybe the identification is too broad or something? Reports have been that the kids experiencing post-vaccine are typically recovering fully (from AAA's link):
 

Quote

 

The CDC had information on the recovery of patients in 220 cases; in more than 80 percent of these cases, patients got better on their own.

...

Generally, children who have myocarditis will follow up with a cardiologist for about six months to make sure there are no other significant problems. Most cases are generally mild and go away on their own.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Doug B said:

WebMD on myocarditis:

... followed by a lot of information about severe cases, how they present, how to treat, etc.

It must be different for adults than for kids. Mortality for kids can approach 20%. Another significant number require heart transplants.

There's nothing "mild" about myocarditis in children even though enough completely recover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, gianmarco said:

It must be different for adults than for kids. Mortality for kids can approach 20%. Another significant number require heart transplants.

There's nothing "mild" about myocarditis in children even though enough completely recover.

No doubt about it. There's a Myocarditis Foundation, and I've gone down the rabbit hole on their site a bit to learn more. It's not an illness that gets a lot of public attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Overall, 226 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis after vaccination in people younger than age 30 have been confirmed, Dr. Tom Shimabukuro, deputy director of the CDC's Immunization Safety Office, said during a presentation to a Food and Drug Administration advisory group. Further investigation is needed, however, to confirm whether the vaccination was the cause of the heart problem.

Normally, fewer than 100 cases would be expected for this age group.

Denominators matter. If we're talking about everyone under age 30 who has been vaccinated, 226 still produces a really damn small percentage. Of course we shouldn't take it lightly, and should try to figure out whether there is anything to it, but based on what we currently know, these cases are exceedingly rare and should not be used as evidence against vaccination. 

Edited by Pip's Invitation
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Pip's Invitation said:

Denominators matter. If we're talking about everyone under age 30 who has been vaccinated, 226 still produces a really damn small percentage. Of course we shouldn't take it lightly, and should try to figure out whether there is anything to it, but based on what we currently know, these cases are exceedingly rare and should not be used as evidence against vaccination. 

Agreed 100%. That's one of the bad things about this kind of reporting. Now some will say "The vaccines cause heart problems!" as a blanket statement.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Doug B said:

Agreed 100%. That's one of the bad things about this kind of reporting. Now some will say "The vaccines cause heart problems!" as a blanket statement.

Yep. It's a byproduct of too many people in the media not understanding things like "denominators matter." 

If this were a statement to the general public, I would fault the CDC as well, but it wasn't. When CDC and FDA people discuss issues like this, "denominators matter" is understood and doesn't need to be explicitly stated to each other. Unfortunately in this case, someone who doesn't understand that heard the conversation and reported it without context to large numbers of people. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/9/2021 at 1:51 PM, Nathan R. Jessep said:
On 6/9/2021 at 12:08 PM, Doug B said:

Should be interesting to see what happens with that. 

This got wrapped up faster than I thought it would (though there will likely be an appeal):

Judge rules in favor of a Houston hospital requiring employees to be vaccinated against Covid-19 (CNN, 6/13/2021)

Quote

 

A judge has dismissed a lawsuit against Houston Methodist Hospital by employees who opposed a Covid-19 vaccine mandate as a condition of employment.

On Saturday, US District Court Judge Lynn Hughes ruled against Jennifer Bridges and 116 of her fellow Houston Methodist coworkers who sued to block the Covid-19 vaccination requirement. Houston Methodist Hospital moved to dismiss the case.

Bridges and her co-workers claimed the Covid-19 vaccines used in the US were "experimental and dangerous," and that it would be "wrongful" to be terminated for refusing the get vaccinated.

...

The privately run Houston Methodist Hospital countered, saying not only were Bridges' claims untrue, but that under Texas law, workers are protected from termination only if they refuse to commit a criminal act that carries criminal penalties.

Receiving a Covid-19 vaccine is not an illegal act, and it carries no criminal penalties.

The judge agreed with Houston Methodist Hospital. Hughes admonished Bridges' analogy that her threat of termination in this case was like "forced medical experimentation during the Holocaust."

Judge Hughes called that claim "reprehensible" and said Bridges was not being coerced.

"Methodist is trying to do their business of saving lives without giving them ... COVID-19," Hughes wrote in the dismissal of the lawsuit.

"It is a choice made to keep staff, patients, and their families safer. Bridges can freely choose to accept or refuse a COVID-19 vaccine; however if she refuses she will simply need to work somewhere else."

 

 

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

Our store finally gave the green light for people fully vaccinated to go maskless at work if they choose.  Predictably, there were already grumbling of "discrimination" and customers knowing who and who isn't vaccinated.  

Oh well - at least I am excited about going maskless tomorrow!  Now I actually have to start brushing my teeth and trimming my nose hairs again.  ;) 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/12/2021 at 2:48 PM, Doug B said:

Agreed 100%. That's one of the bad things about this kind of reporting. Now some will say "The vaccines cause heart problems!" as a blanket statement.

 

On 6/12/2021 at 2:43 PM, Pip's Invitation said:

Denominators matter. If we're talking about everyone under age 30 who has been vaccinated, 226 still produces a really damn small percentage. Of course we shouldn't take it lightly, and should try to figure out whether there is anything to it, but based on what we currently know, these cases are exceedingly rare and should not be used as evidence against vaccination. 

Anti vax logic is neat 

I dont need to get vaccinated because there's a very small risk of getting covid or dying from it!

Also I can't get the vaccine because there's a much, much smaller number risk of side effects!

I'm just following the science!

  • 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   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...