What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Can We Civilly Discuss Thoughts On Vaccination? A Poll. (2 Viewers)

Where would you land among these descriptions?

  • Vaccinated and no regret

    Votes: 292 82.5%
  • Vaccinated but some regret

    Votes: 18 5.1%
  • Not Vaccinated and don't plan to

    Votes: 32 9.0%
  • Not Vaccinated but considering it

    Votes: 12 3.4%

  • Total voters
    354
We're pushing massive mandates on that line of thinking, I think we should at least be consistant.  That was my whole issue with the consistency comment.  

If I'm being forced to do something I don't want to to keep my job in the name of public health, I should be able to ask that we at least pretend to take this "public health crisis" seriously.  
I agree, we should take it seriously.  Not my fault that many individuals don't and some employers don't.  If I were the sole employer for the entire country, you'd get vaccinated or get fired.  Alas, I'm not.

 
We're pushing massive mandates on that line of thinking, I think we should at least be consistant.  That was my whole issue with the consistency comment.  

If I'm being forced to do something I don't want to to keep my job in the name of public health, I should be able to ask that we at least pretend to take this "public health crisis" seriously.  
Most of the people I know that are against the needle are thinking we are taking Covid way to seriously.  They don't believe the disease is serious enough to call for 'extreme' measures.

 
Absolutely. Not only were the "PhDs" bogus, but the whole concept is silly, when you consider vaccination rates among doctors who actually treat covid patients.

From autism to long-term safety "concerns", I'm not sure why vaccines are so vulnerable to misinformation.
Because it's magic prevention that they can't see.  The counterfactual on the individual level cannot be proven. 

 
Do you guys know if the Covid vax clinical trials included bloodwork pre- and post-jab that tracked the immunity markers this doctor is describing in this video? If not, have there been any later studies about the vaxxes' potential correlation to these markers?

https://www.#####ute.com/video/qqRZadV9TWDX/
That site looks like malware waiting to happen, so I’m not interested in perusing its content. But if you list the markers, I’ll let you know.

FTR, there are a bunch of markers of “immunity” which are so multifaceted and nonspecific, it’s hard to draw any conclusions based on blood levels. Examples include interferons, interleukins, tumor necrosis factors and specific white blood cell subtypes (eg. monocytes).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Most of the people I know that are against the needle are thinking we are taking Covid way to seriously.  They don't believe the disease is serious enough to call for 'extreme' measures.
Yep. But those some people endlessly complain about inconsistency and hypocrisy. It’s almost as if they’re looking for reasons to be p!ssed off at every pandemic policy.

 
That site looks like malware waiting to happen, so I’m not interested in perusing its content. But if you list the markers, I’ll let you know.

FTR, there are a bunch of markers of “immunity” which are so multifaceted and nonspecific, it’s hard to draw any conclusions based on blood levels. Examples include interferons, interleukins, tumor necrosis factors and specific white blood cell subtypes (eg. monocytes).


Granulocyte % - 58.9 -> 79.6% (neutrophils, first-responders, emergency-type cells to fight bacterial infections and tissue damage)

Lymphocyte % - 33.8 -> 13.8%  (CD3, CD4, CD8, CD16, CD 56, Killer T-Cells - natural immune system cells that fight viruses and cancers)

These were the changes to this doctor's patient's blood panel pre- and post- vax after ~1 mo. One anecdote, not a study. But I am curious to know if the official Covid-vax clinical studies tracked these markers and if so, what they showed.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Granulocyte % - 58.9 -> 79.6% (neutrophils, first-responders, emergency-type cells to fight bacterial infections and tissue damage)

Lymphocyte % - 33.8 -> 13.8%  (CD3, CD4, CD8, CD16, CD 56, Killer T-Cells - natural immune system cells that fight viruses and cancers)

These were the changes to this doctor's patient's blood panel pre- and post- vax after ~1 mo. One anecdote, not a study. But I am curious to know if the official Covid-vax clinical studies tracked these markers and if so, what they showed.
Here’s data for the Pfizer vaccine:

No grade 1 or greater change in routine clinical laboratory values or laboratory abnormalities were observed for most participants after either of the BNT162b1 vaccinations.

Of those with laboratory changes, the largest changes were decreases in the lymphocyte count after the first dose in 8.3% (1 out of 12), 45.5% (5 out of 11) and 50.0% (6 out of 12) of participants who received 10 μg, 30 μg and 100 μg BNT162b1, respectively. One participant each in the 10-μg (8.3% (1 out of 12)) and 30-μg (9.1% (1 out of 11)) groups and 4 participants in the 100-μg group (33.3% (4 out of 12)) had grade 3 decreases in the lymphocyte count. These decreases in lymphocyte count after the first dose were transient and returned to normal 6–8 days after vaccination (Extended Data Fig. 1).

In addition, grade-2 neutropenia was noted 6–8 days after the second dose in 1 participant each in the 10-μg and 30-μg BNT162b1 groups. These two participants continue to be followed in the study, and no adverse events or clinical manifestations of neutropenia have been reported to date.

None of the post-vaccination abnormalities observed were associated with clinical findings.

 
I don't think your characterization of the suspension is accurate.  The Nets suspended him because, due to NYC regulations, his choices prevent him from participating as a full member of the team.  You can argue that the NYC regulations are stupid, but I'm unclear why you would think a team should put up with a player who can play just under half the games, can't fully participate in practices, etc.

 
Individuals have the freedom to make choices regarding their health. Companies have the freedom to make choices regarding terms of employment. It's a win-win, Iring does not need to get the vaccine and the nets get to fill his roster spot with someone who will be available full time.


Hmmm, I wonder what would happen if the Nets tried to suspend/fire Irving because he was black?  A company's right to autonomy is not limitless.  

 
Hmmm, I wonder what would happen if the Nets tried to suspend/fire Irving because he was black?  A company's right to autonomy is not limitless.  
What would happen if Irving punched out Joe Tsai on live tv? Player rights to do whatever they want are not limitless either.

 
I don't think your characterization of the suspension is accurate.  The Nets suspended him because, due to NYC regulations, his choices prevent him from participating as a full member of the team.  You can argue that the NYC regulations are stupid, but I'm unclear why you would think a team should put up with a player who can play just under half the games, can't fully participate in practices, etc.
They suspended him as a result of a mandate to keep him safe.  Like I said, it's pretty scientific. 

 
Individuals have the freedom to make choices regarding their health. Companies have the freedom to make choices regarding terms of employment. It's a win-win, Iring does not need to get the vaccine and the nets get to fill his roster spot with someone who will be available full time.
We've lost sight of the goal at this point.  Shocked people can't see it.

 
They suspended him as a result of a mandate to keep him safe.  Like I said, it's pretty scientific. 
Well, you can sarcastically call the mandate scientific, but the Nets didn't suspend him due to "science".  The Nets suspended him because they want to have a cohesive team unit, and he can't play in more than half their games.  The Nets didn't choose the mandate, but they do have to abide by it.

 
Well, you can sarcastically call the mandate scientific, but the Nets didn't suspend him due to "science".  The Nets suspended him because they want to have a cohesive team unit, and he can't play in more than half their games.  The Nets didn't choose the mandate, but they do have to abide by it.
The mandate is dumb and being done in the name of science.  The Nets can do what they want, but not letting him play due to "unit cohesion" is laughable.  Paying the guy not to play... We've lost sight of common sense. 

 
The mandate is dumb and being done in the name of science.  The Nets can do what they want, but not letting him play due to "unit cohesion" is laughable.  Paying the guy not to play... We've lost sight of common sense. 
They aren't paying him to not play

 
Snotbubbles said:
Poor analogy, we're talking about being forced to put something into your body.  
It's not any worse than suggesting suspending someone for something protected by law (race) is analogous with suspending someone because they chose to make themselves unavailable for work.

 
NHL star allegedly used fake vaccine card, a federal crime punishable by up to five years in prison

Lifetime Ban. 
A little late to this but I thought I’d put in my two cents. Termination of current contract and lengthy suspension would be appropriate, lifetime ban seems excessive.

If you look at a nurse getting fired for not getting vaccinated, I don’t think they are getting their license revoked or suspended which would be equivalent to a lifetime ban. If they were caught using a fake vaccination card they would get fired and possibly face discipline from the state board but likely wouldn’t lose their license. If they got caught selling fake cards, that’s another story.

 
A little late to this but I thought I’d put in my two cents. Termination of current contract and lengthy suspension would be appropriate, lifetime ban seems excessive.

If you look at a nurse getting fired for not getting vaccinated, I don’t think they are getting their license revoked or suspended which would be equivalent to a lifetime ban. If they were caught using a fake vaccination card they would get fired and possibly face discipline from the state board but likely wouldn’t lose their license. If they got caught selling fake cards, that’s another story.
I think a nurse using a fake vaccination card would most assuredly lose his/her license

 
Snotbubbles said:
Hmmm, I wonder what would happen if the Nets tried to suspend/fire Irving because he was black?  A company's right to autonomy is not limitless.  
Why do some people continually go to this argument?   I know you can tell the difference between those two things.  

 
Snotbubbles said:
Hmmm, I wonder what would happen if the Nets tried to suspend/fire Irving because he was black?  A company's right to autonomy is not limitless.  
Kyrie being black is not a choice.  He clearly stated players have choices.  

 
I heard from a colleague that both her and her husband received full vaccinations but she does not have the Covid antibodies. I wonder how much research has gone into the vaccines not being effective for some people. I'm not an anti vaxer but just mentioning a possibility of the break thru instances of people getting covid. Yes I realize this is a single anecdotal incident. 

 
The Commish said:
Another analysis to put on the "you should get the vaccine" pile.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm?s_cid=mm7044e1_w
Those numbers actually suck in full context.

Laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection was identified among 324 (5.1%) of 6,328 fully vaccinated persons and among 89 of 1,020 (8.7%) unvaccinated, previously infected persons.
Of the study participants.  87% were fully vaccinated hospitalizations with COVID-19–like illness. 

They also used rapid antigen tests to determine previous infection. 

 
Some good news from Minnesota

The state on Monday also reported that 57,023 coronavirus infections have occurred in Minnesota's 3.2 million fully vaccinated individuals — a breakthrough infection rate of 1.8%. The breakthrough cases included 2,609 people who were hospitalized and 372 who died of COVID-19.

And some bad news from Minnesota

The state's death toll in the pandemic increased to 8,694 — with 424 deaths reported so far in October being the highest monthly total since 775 deaths were reported in January. The state reached a low of 55 COVID-19 deaths in July before the latest wave was fueled by the fast-spreading delta variant of the coronavirus.

https://www.startribune.com/minnesota-reports-first-covid-19-reinfection-numbers/600112043/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=talkers

 
The Commish said:
Another analysis to put on the "you should get the vaccine" pile.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm?s_cid=mm7044e1_w
Those numbers actually suck in full context.

Laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection was identified among 324 (5.1%) of 6,328 fully vaccinated persons and among 89 of 1,020 (8.7%) unvaccinated, previously infected persons.
Of the study participants.  87% were fully vaccinated hospitalizations with COVID-19–like illness. 

They also used rapid antigen tests to determine previous infection. 
This response is one of two things:

1.  Just a flat out rejection of what the study is looking at

OR

2.  Not understanding that it doesn't appear to be answering the question you want it to and therefore "sucks". 

Either way, this study is a piece of evidence towards getting the vaccine (even if you've already had the virus) as the vaccines seem to be better than natural immunity.  For those not wanting to read the whole thing, Table2 is what you should be looking at.

 
This response is one of two things:

1.  Just a flat out rejection of what the study is looking at

OR

2.  Not understanding that it doesn't appear to be answering the question you want it to and therefore "sucks". 

Either way, this study is a piece of evidence towards getting the vaccine (even if you've already had the virus) as the vaccines seem to be better than natural immunity.  For those not wanting to read the whole thing, Table2 is what you should be looking at.
No, I explained the limitations of the study and why I don't put a lot of stock into it. The study itself even lists seven additional limitations. 

Rapid Antigen testing isn't the best method to determine natural immunity. But this study is going to take it as unquestioned truth. Come on. 

Plus the fact that 87% of subjects were fully vaccinated and in the hospital for COVID-like illness. 

 
Also good news for those who want to get their 5-11 year olds vaccinated.  Pfizer is going to improve the stability of the formula by swapping to a buffer that will reduce heart issues.  

 
No, I explained the limitations of the study and why I don't put a lot of stock into it. The study itself even lists seven additional limitations. 

Rapid Antigen testing isn't the best method to determine natural immunity. But this study is going to take it as unquestioned truth. Come on. 

Plus the fact that 87% of subjects were fully vaccinated and in the hospital for COVID-like illness. 
I said TWICE that it's A piece of evidence pointing towards getting the vaccine.  And to be clear, you explained that you felt the results "sucked" knowing the limitations.  You did NOT explain why, as a piece of evidence, they were problematic.  

 
I said TWICE that it's A piece of evidence pointing towards getting the vaccine.  And to be clear, you explained that you felt the results "sucked" knowing the limitations.  You did NOT explain why, as a piece of evidence, they were problematic.  
Sorry, I assumed people knew the rapid antigen testing wasn't as reliable as PCR testing. 

Its just a weak study.  They spent 9 months looking at these metrics and only came back with 7k people who fit a small 90-180 day window and showed the people with claimed natural immunity tested positive at a higher rate and MRNA vaccinted people in the same range.  There is plenty of data that didn't make the cut in this study, so I would have loved to see it. 

I think the concerning thing should be the vaccinated are in the hospitals at 6x times higher rate for COVID like illness. 

I'll still side with the real world 800k study done vs this 7k controlled study. 

 
Sorry, I assumed people knew the rapid antigen testing wasn't as reliable as PCR testing. 

Its just a weak study.  They spent 9 months looking at these metrics and only came back with 7k people who fit a small 90-180 day window and showed the people with claimed natural immunity tested positive at a higher rate and MRNA vaccinted people in the same range.  There is plenty of data that didn't make the cut in this study, so I would have loved to see it. 

I think the concerning thing should be the vaccinated are in the hospitals at 6x times higher rate for COVID like illness. 

I'll still side with the real world 800k study done vs this 7k controlled study. 
They were trying to answer a specific question in this study.  The bold is why this SEEMS to be a study about X and you want it to be about Y.  They didn't leave data on the lab floor as it pertained to their goal.  Of course, larger time frames, larger participant counts etc will either validate or invalidate this test, but for now, it should be taken for what it says.  It's legitimacy will be tested.  That's how this science thing works.

You say you'll side with the 800K study.  It's not going to be the final say on this matter....not even close.  It will also be another piece of evidence to be considered with hundreds of other pieces of evidence.

 
They were trying to answer a specific question in this study.  The bold is why this SEEMS to be a study about X and you want it to be about Y.  They didn't leave data on the lab floor as it pertained to their goal.  Of course, larger time frames, larger participant counts etc will either validate or invalidate this test, but for now, it should be taken for what it says.  It's legitimacy will be tested.  That's how this science thing works.

You say you'll side with the 800K study.  It's not going to be the final say on this matter....not even close.  It will also be another piece of evidence to be considered with hundreds of other pieces of evidence.
I get it's a nugget of proof, but when the conclusion is...

All eligible persons should be vaccinated against COVID-19 as soon as possible, including unvaccinated persons previously infected with SARS-CoV-2.

I'll take the liberty to point out where it misses the mark. 

 
I get it's a nugget of proof, but when the conclusion is...

All eligible persons should be vaccinated against COVID-19 as soon as possible, including unvaccinated persons previously infected with SARS-CoV-2.

I'll take the liberty to point out where it misses the mark. 
Based on the data they presented do you disagree with their recommendation?

 
I get it's a nugget of proof, but when the conclusion is...

All eligible persons should be vaccinated against COVID-19 as soon as possible, including unvaccinated persons previously infected with SARS-CoV-2.

I'll take the liberty to point out where it misses the mark. 
As I would expect.  You've done this consistently with anything that pushes against what you've predetermined to be correct.  You aren't alone...many take this approach.

 
Just bizarre.  Presumably, they've worked there all this time and had no problems with the shirt mandate, pants mandate, and shoes mandate.
Steel toes, no wedding bands, long sleeves, long pants only, eye protection, hearing protection, Scott air packs, all mandated for years.   Tell me it isn’t politics lol. 

 
Based on the data they presented do you disagree with their recommendation?
I don't put much stake into a recommendation that seemingly comes from cherry picked data.  There were a lot of variables at play and they picked the criteria that works best for them to make their claim.  The vaccines were more effective in a small window (when they are at their peak efficacy) in preventing a covid positive test.  

This study was conducted from January through August in nine states.  This was against the A/B strain and the Delta strain.  The numbers actually show Natural immunity did better against the Delta strain than it did A/B.  Probably because vaccinated people were not going to the hospital for COVID like symptoms during the summer as "breakthrough cases were rare". So it's just a flawed study in several regards. 

 
I don't put much stake into a recommendation that seemingly comes from cherry picked data.  There were a lot of variables at play and they picked the criteria that works best for them to make their claim.  The vaccines were more effective in a small window (when they are at their peak efficacy) in preventing a covid positive test.  

This study was conducted from January through August in nine states.  This was against the A/B strain and the Delta strain.  The numbers actually show Natural immunity did better against the Delta strain than it did A/B.  Probably because vaccinated people were not going to the hospital for COVID like symptoms during the summer as "breakthrough cases were rare". So it's just a flawed study in several regards. 
That’s how data works.  

 
The buffer of Pfizer's pediatric vaccine is, indeed, different than the adult one ... but where did you read that the new buffer will reduce "heart issues"?

 
It's one of the weirder "dings" I've heard as of late.  Buffers merely keep pH levels similar to the body.  They used a salt solution in the Pfizer vaccine.  I don't know what they changed it to (if not just a variation of the same salt solution), but it's pretty silly to suggest the original salt solution had ANYTHING to do with the "heart issues".  The "heart issues" come from inflammation.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top