Vaccine

Gonzaga suspends John Stockton's men's basketball tickets for failure to follow COVID-19 mask mandate

From John. This guy was a baller, let's here what he has to say.

"Basically, it came down to, they were asking me to wear a mask to the games and being a public figure, someone a little bit more visible, I stuck out in the crowd a little bit," Stockton told the newspaper. "And therefore they received complaints and felt like from whatever the higher-ups -- those weren't discussed, but from whatever it was higher up -- they were going to have to either ask me to wear a mask or they were going to suspend my tickets."

The "higher ups" are the snobs from Nocal who are either afraid or being snobs or both. Elitist at their finest. if you don't follow our mandates, you can't come here anymore or play soccer. I told you this group owned & controlled soccer. It's all over. We got it all. It will take time to clean this mess up though. So sad to see the division but this is time to not comply to these lame rules.
 
How are you and I any different? Have you read your posts and the absolutism they convey? I mean I encourage you to go back read posts by yourself and other self proclaimed "Team Reality" folks. It's not pretty. To quote you "You don't know what I do for a living and likewise.". You are absolutely correct here, yet you're the one who presumed I live a privileged lifestyle and even expressed certainty with that view with "I may be completely wrong but I doubt it." Sooooo...yeah.

I bring up Bay Area communities because they have high vaccination rates. This has nothing to do with superiority. I get that you all are anti-mandate. I get that. Where I take issue is when you all argue against vaccines to make your case. I think that is misguided and uninformed. There are other legitimate arguments against mandates to be made. The incessant down playing of the effectiveness of the vaccine is exhausting. You couple those arguments with the fact that I know, given a highly vaccinated area, things have actually worked out rather well.

i agree with you that vaccines seem to be effective. But I also wonder why they stopped posting vaccinated vs unvaccinated on many Covid dashboards. In OC they unvaccinated started at 95, then 90, then down to 80, then no more displaying. It is pretty clear they do not want the public to see the numbers show that vaccinated people are getting the virus at a higher rate than yff he e unvaccinated, even though as you have well stated that it will eventually be inevitable if vaccination rates increase.
So I get your issue, so here is mine. It is clear now more than ever that it is possible to get the virus, spread the virus and be hospitalized if you have been vaccinated or not. So, why do vaccinated people care If people don’t want to get a flu/Covid shot? The only reason left is that it fills up the hospitals. But that is hardly true. The SacBee reported that 24% were taking by Covid patients. That means 75% were taken by others like obsess overweight, diabetic, smokers, and drug related issues. We can stop all those hospitalizations as well, obesity has increased 20% over the last 5 years, but we don’t regulate that? I just don’t see how some can pick and choose what is mandated. I don’t eat fast food or drink so I don’t think anyone else should either but I’m not complaining about there being a mandate for it
 
The article in question is an opinion piece.

So what part of the opinion piece do you disagree with?

- That they should release the study information related to testing of the various vaccines?
- Or do you disagree with the fact that the FDA doesn't want to release certain information for 75 years?

And which of the above is right wing and not worthy of discussion?

Do you prefer not to know what their testing shows? And what rational basis would the FDA have for asking for a 75 yr delay in releasing information?
 
A striking feature of the excerpts released in the committee’s January 11, 2022 letter is that the virologists had little doubt that the virus bore the fingerprints of manipulation. The focus of their attention was a genetic element called a furin cleavage site. This short snippet of genetic material is what makes the virus so infectious for human cells. Scientists sometimes add this element to laboratory viruses to make them more virulent, but in nature, viruses usually acquire runs of genetic material like this by swapping them with other members of their family. The furin cleavage site in the Covid virus sticks out like a sore thumb because no other known member of its family—a group called Sarbecoviruses—possesses a furin cleavage site. So how did the virus acquire it?

 
Where I take issue is when you all argue against vaccines to make your case. I think that is misguided and uninformed. There are other legitimate arguments against mandates to be made. The incessant down playing of the effectiveness of the vaccine is exhausting. You couple those arguments with the fact that I know, given a highly vaccinated area, things have actually worked out rather well.
You've simplified my (and likely others on here) view on vaccines and mandates. No where have I stated my opposition to vaccines. I'm vaccinated, my employees are vaccinated, 75% of my family is vaccinated. I've had a breakthrough infection, a very mild one at that. No one in my family is boosted and will not get boosted. My employees will choose whether they get boosted.

The data is clear and supports the efficacy in preventing severe disease and death, especially those ove 65. My issue isn't even with people who blindly follow policy makers driven by political aspiration. It's evident to me that science and logic has been abandoned or mabye even lost to politics and fear.

The vaccines do not: provide complete protection to the vaccinated, confer immunity on par or better than prior infection, and do not prevent transmission. If all of this is true, then mandates don't make sense, the logic fails.

There are plenty of novel therapututics available that reduce risk of hospitalization and death by 50-90%. Exisiting drugs repurposed drugs have been proven to be more effective. And our health care systems have evolved in executing critical care for covid. Are our health systems being challenged right now? Sure. They always are this time of the year. COVID has challenged them more - more involved in treating covid patients, availability of staff, etc.

At this point, mandates don't make sense, plenty of reasons why. Choice is a good idea though. Good health is hard to mandate. Even terminally ill patients dont' listen to their providers. Has always been like that. Really good bedside manners and education usually work better than mandates.
 
You've simplified my (and likely others on here) view on vaccines and mandates. No where have I stated my opposition to vaccines. I'm vaccinated, my employees are vaccinated, 75% of my family is vaccinated. I've had a breakthrough infection, a very mild one at that. No one in my family is boosted and will not get boosted. My employees will choose whether they get boosted.

The data is clear and supports the efficacy in preventing severe disease and death, especially those ove 65. My issue isn't even with people who blindly follow policy makers driven by political aspiration. It's evident to me that science and logic has been abandoned or mabye even lost to politics and fear.

The vaccines do not: provide complete protection to the vaccinated, confer immunity on par or better than prior infection, and do not prevent transmission. If all of this is true, then mandates don't make sense, the logic fails.

There are plenty of novel therapututics available that reduce risk of hospitalization and death by 50-90%. Exisiting drugs repurposed drugs have been proven to be more effective. And our health care systems have evolved in executing critical care for covid. Are our health systems being challenged right now? Sure. They always are this time of the year. COVID has challenged them more - more involved in treating covid patients, availability of staff, etc.

At this point, mandates don't make sense, plenty of reasons why. Choice is a good idea though. Good health is hard to mandate. Even terminally ill patients dont' listen to their providers. Has always been like that. Really good bedside manners and education usually work better than mandates.
I saw a pic of LA Ram fans all fired up watching the game with No mask on. Today, I see kids waiting for bus, all with mask and bus driver with a mask on. Something a lot worse then mandates is going on.
 
grant.PNGgrant.PNGgrant.PNG
Me at my morning zoom meeting JK

Grant Wahl at Gregg Berhalter press conference. Its a zoom press conference every reporter are in different locations.
Have to virtual signal ? I don't know if he has Covid ? I would assume he could isolate in a room in his house.
 
How are you and I any different? Have you read your posts and the absolutism they convey? I mean I encourage you to go back read posts by yourself and other self proclaimed "Team Reality" folks. It's not pretty. To quote you "You don't know what I do for a living and likewise.". You are absolutely correct here, yet you're the one who presumed I live a privileged lifestyle and even expressed certainty with that view with "I may be completely wrong but I doubt it." Sooooo...yeah.

I bring up Bay Area communities because they have high vaccination rates. This has nothing to do with superiority. I get that you all are anti-mandate. I get that. Where I take issue is when you all argue against vaccines to make your case. I think that is misguided and uninformed. There are other legitimate arguments against mandates to be made. The incessant down playing of the effectiveness of the vaccine is exhausting. You couple those arguments with the fact that I know, given a highly vaccinated area, things have actually worked out rather well.
Difference being, your position regarding vaccines has been, and continues to be, ever-changing, based on the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of the vaccine...hell, the government had to change the definition of vaccine to meet their narrative and you just blindly accepted it. Your position has been forced to evolve basically to...since I've gotten the vaccine and boosters then everyone else must get them as well. The only position in all this that has remained consistent is that of personal choice and no mandates for an experimental vaccine.

You liberals and media lackeys used to question and challenge government at every turn...now you're nothing more than government cheerleaders.
 
It's actually much worse than cheerleading. Many have become authoritarian suppressors of free speech and choice.
These men are on the yell team bro. "Let's go team Vax, boosters and mask" This Vax team is full of spite, full of fear and yes, full of shit!!! That my friend is why we all lost two years of our freedom and counting.

A Real Man.jpg
 
FYI Everyone, all kids in the future will each have two dog angels like this on each side of them. Spike and Buster, Dog Angels to the rescue!!!

The DD.jpg
 
Last edited:
Since the polybasic furin site came up again, media speculation that this is some kind of smoking gun regarding origin is good for clicks and political theater but that's about it. The current state of the matter is that it really does not weigh in one way or another. Natural origin or accidental lab leak remain the two most probable interpretations. There is as of yet no firm proof of either scenario and neither one has been eliminated as a possibility.

https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(21)00991-0.pdf
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867421007091
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.22.427830v3
 
So what part of the opinion piece do you disagree with?

- That they should release the study information related to testing of the various vaccines?
- Or do you disagree with the fact that the FDA doesn't want to release certain information for 75 years?

And which of the above is right wing and not worthy of discussion?

Do you prefer not to know what their testing shows? And what rational basis would the FDA have for asking for a 75 yr delay in releasing information?

There is a coreection posted with the article now --

This editorial by Peter Doshi and colleagues (BMJ 2022;376:eek:102, doi:10.1136/bmj.o102) originally stated that the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has “stopped posting information released in response to freedom of information requests on its website.” The online version has been corrected to say that MHRA’s posting is delayed, not stopped completely. MHRA posted no additional freedom of information requests on its website between 14 August and 28 December 2021. Since 29 December, however, it has posted a selection of materials for responses from July to September.
 
The vaccines do not: provide complete protection to the vaccinated, confer immunity on par or better than prior infection, and do not prevent transmission. If all of this is true, then mandates don't make sense, the logic fails.

This is where I take issue. The vaccine, especially with a booster has shown to reduce infection. Is it 100% no, but we've gone over that over and over again. Every study, and every Bay Area county, has it around 70-75% reduction in infection. The data is clear. The counter argument you always come back with is natural immunity. Again, uninformed and misguided. The vaccine is much safer than taking a chance on getting infected and hoping you just have mild symptoms. On top of that, the vaccine helps reduce strain on our systems. The natural immunity path is not as predictable and there's no way to reverse course once you go that direction.

I personally don't care if y'all get the vaccine or not. Your choice. I've been clear about that since day one. I'm not pro-mandate. I am pro-logic. The politicization of this issue is the real drag -- and is abundantly present on this thread.
 
So what part of the opinion piece do you disagree with?

- That they should release the study information related to testing of the various vaccines?
- Or do you disagree with the fact that the FDA doesn't want to release certain information for 75 years?

And which of the above is right wing and not worthy of discussion?

Do you prefer not to know what their testing shows? And what rational basis would the FDA have for asking for a 75 yr delay in releasing information?

And another point -- the FDA did not ask for a 75-year delay in releasing information. The FDA stated that there was a lot of data and at its current rate of reviewing (for legal and scientific purposes) that data before releasing to the public (500 pages per day) that it would take 75 years to review and release it all. A federal judge has ordered the FDA to speed things up.

As for what is right wing -- I decided not to pay the $1 and read the paywalled Epoch Times article, so I don't know what is in there. In my opinion, however, the fallacy that the FDA will not release any data for 75 years smells like it came from an unreliable source. Further investigation of the source of that claim might be assisted if you tell us where you got it.
 
Back
Top