Author Topic: Wiggins won't get vaccinated may be banned from playing home games  (Read 21155 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Wiggins won't get vaccinated may be banned from playing home games
« Reply #75 on: September 24, 2021, 03:09:07 PM »

Offline gift

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3984
  • Tommy Points: 291
In the last month....I know of 7 people who have been vaxxed and have gotten Covid (all were fine). A good friend of mine was double vaxxed, got Covid and we're pretty sure he gave me Covid over 2 weeks ago--I took Hydroxychloroquine, Azithromycin and Zinc Sulfate, Barely had a fever for a couple of days and am 100% now.

I'm not anti-vax, I just did my research....Nobody could tell me the long term effects of this Vaccination, because NOBODY knows, it's too new. Make your own decisions.

If you did your research, can you name a single vaccine that is harmless within the first two months of injection and causes long-term effects? If you did your research, you know no such vaccine has ever existed.

Off the top of my head, and by no means am I an expert, here are some viruses that cause recurrences and major long-term effects in some people (good luck waiting to find out if COVID-19 will have long-term effects for you):

Human Papilloma Virus -> Certain cancers, recurrences
Epstein Barr Virus -> Certain cancers, certain autoimmune disorders
Human Immunodeficiency Virus -> AIDS if untreated (so much for “natural immunity”), certain cancers even if treated
Herpes -> Recurrences for life
Chickenpox -> Shingles for some later in life
Hepatitis C -> Liver cancer and other issues
Hepatitis B -> liver cancer and other issues

Certainly hope COVID-19 does not have long-term effects similar to the above viruses that emerged in nature (TBD on whether that virus you had emerged in nature), but not interested in personally finding out someday…

Yes, people should do their own research:

1) There is no such thing as a vaccine that causes long-term effects without short-term effects in the first two months following injectio.

2) Billions of doses of the vaccine for COVID-19 have been given with most everybody having no serious side effects in the first two months.

3) Nature is full of viruses that return with a vengeance later in life. Nobody knows if COVID-19 will one day join that list (and at this point, would it really surprise anybody if this was engineered in a lab and has some big surprises for people after an incubation period similar to HIV, which causes illness in the first two weeks of being infected before utterly wrecking havoc on your immune system years later?)

Get vaccinated ASAP, folks…this thing is no joke, the vaccines are harmless and minimize the likelihood of infection/spread, and if you think you’ve got “natural immunity” (whatever that means) to something that may have been developed in a lab in Wuhan and got out by accident (surprise-surprise: the last case of smallpox ever was a lab leak in England in the late 1970s), well, best of luck…or you can just get a harmless shot that minimizes the likelihood of the spike protein having its way with you…if everybody does it and R-naught falls below zero, this thing becomes a thing of the past in America…

While I would say a long term effect of the COVID vaccine that doesn’t show up immediately is the necessity to get another shot, I’ll also point out that not all immediate adverse effects are known immediately. For instance Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine was discovered to negatively effect insulin levels when administered to children after the age of 2. This is associated with higher risk of diabetes but might go on unlinked if not observed via study. It’s an example of long term risk that doesn’t necessarily show up immediately.

Ok, I don't know if you are aware of this or not but you just cited an extremely scientifically dubious claim that largely results from the research of JB Classen, a somewhat notorious anti-vaxxer.

In the late 90's Classen began pushing the claim that vaccines administered after the age of 2 months led to an increase in rates of diabetes in children (his research found that BEFORE 2 months vaccination  that it lowered the rates of diabetes). He largely based this off three avenues of research. The first was studies done in mice using an anthrax vaccine, a vaccine that was rarely used in infants or children. The second was population level studies comparing the rates of diabetes between countries with different immunization schedule (ie countries that vaccinated earlier vs later). The third was a data analysis of a study in Finland of the Haemphlius influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine conducted over 100,000 children. In that study children were either assigned to receive 4 does of vaccine starting at 3 months or a single one at 24 months. He found a slightly larger number of children who received one dose developed diabetes than did the multiple dose group, which he interpreted as meaning children given the vaccine later developed diabetes at a higher rate.

So what's the issue here? All of these claims are extremely dubious for a variety of reasons. The animal research largely used a rarely used vaccine, and besides that animal research is just not directly translatable to human subjects. There's too big a biological difference between mice and people to draw firm conclusions from that alone. The population level studies meanwhile were largely criticized for his failure to consider alternate explanations for his conclusions, for example there can be a number of confounding factors (like rates of sugar consumption) that may influence a children's chance of developing diabetes in one country vs a child of the same age in another or because they looked at vaccines that were rarely used or have been discontinued in use. The Finland data analysis meanwhile didn't include the number of children in each group so there is no way of knowing whether his data was statistically significant.

Critically follow up studies have been unable to replicate his findings, and further study either between vaccines and diabetes in general or vaccines administered later and diabetes have found no evidence for a link. Here's one such study:

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/108/6/e112

It is generally accepted scientific fact (by virtually every scientific group of import) that there is no evidence supporting JB Classen conclusions, although sadly his work is widely quoted in anti-vax circles.

So the two example you just cited of unforeseen vaccine side effects are 1) a widely criticized unsubstantiated claim from a well-known anti-vaxxer and 2) The idea that vaccines may need a booster, which while we did not 'know immediately" was certainly hypothesized to be possible even before the current vaccines were designed.

But your post does illustrate how hard is to combat vaccine information. Something confidently said that sounds scientific is unlikely to be challenged by the public at large who doesn't always understand the protocols in place used to determine the reliability of the underlying  scientific information. That's why as much as people dislike it is better to trust the recommendations on scientists. Your personal research isn't going to reveal some trend they missed, its literally the job of scientists to take the whole collection of data, analyze its strength and weaknesses, and reach an informed conclusion.

Read my next post on the subject. This was an example of markers showing in the short term where the long term outcomes took years to observe. He never found a link between diabetes and the vaccine. What was observed was insulin level difference which is linked with higher risk of diabetes. The long term outcome of diabetes (which did not come about) required years to know.

Re: Wiggins won't get vaccinated may be banned from playing home games
« Reply #76 on: September 24, 2021, 03:13:06 PM »

Offline keevsnick

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5515
  • Tommy Points: 549
In the last month....I know of 7 people who have been vaxxed and have gotten Covid (all were fine). A good friend of mine was double vaxxed, got Covid and we're pretty sure he gave me Covid over 2 weeks ago--I took Hydroxychloroquine, Azithromycin and Zinc Sulfate, Barely had a fever for a couple of days and am 100% now.

I'm not anti-vax, I just did my research....Nobody could tell me the long term effects of this Vaccination, because NOBODY knows, it's too new. Make your own decisions.

If you did your research, can you name a single vaccine that is harmless within the first two months of injection and causes long-term effects? If you did your research, you know no such vaccine has ever existed.

Off the top of my head, and by no means am I an expert, here are some viruses that cause recurrences and major long-term effects in some people (good luck waiting to find out if COVID-19 will have long-term effects for you):

Human Papilloma Virus -> Certain cancers, recurrences
Epstein Barr Virus -> Certain cancers, certain autoimmune disorders
Human Immunodeficiency Virus -> AIDS if untreated (so much for “natural immunity”), certain cancers even if treated
Herpes -> Recurrences for life
Chickenpox -> Shingles for some later in life
Hepatitis C -> Liver cancer and other issues
Hepatitis B -> liver cancer and other issues

Certainly hope COVID-19 does not have long-term effects similar to the above viruses that emerged in nature (TBD on whether that virus you had emerged in nature), but not interested in personally finding out someday…

Yes, people should do their own research:

1) There is no such thing as a vaccine that causes long-term effects without short-term effects in the first two months following injectio.

2) Billions of doses of the vaccine for COVID-19 have been given with most everybody having no serious side effects in the first two months.

3) Nature is full of viruses that return with a vengeance later in life. Nobody knows if COVID-19 will one day join that list (and at this point, would it really surprise anybody if this was engineered in a lab and has some big surprises for people after an incubation period similar to HIV, which causes illness in the first two weeks of being infected before utterly wrecking havoc on your immune system years later?)

Get vaccinated ASAP, folks…this thing is no joke, the vaccines are harmless and minimize the likelihood of infection/spread, and if you think you’ve got “natural immunity” (whatever that means) to something that may have been developed in a lab in Wuhan and got out by accident (surprise-surprise: the last case of smallpox ever was a lab leak in England in the late 1970s), well, best of luck…or you can just get a harmless shot that minimizes the likelihood of the spike protein having its way with you…if everybody does it and R-naught falls below zero, this thing becomes a thing of the past in America…

While I would say a long term effect of the COVID vaccine that doesn’t show up immediately is the necessity to get another shot, I’ll also point out that not all immediate adverse effects are known immediately. For instance Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine was discovered to negatively effect insulin levels when administered to children after the age of 2. This is associated with higher risk of diabetes but might go on unlinked if not observed via study. It’s an example of long term risk that doesn’t necessarily show up immediately.

Ok, I don't know if you are aware of this or not but you just cited an extremely scientifically dubious claim that largely results from the research of JB Classen, a somewhat notorious anti-vaxxer.

In the late 90's Classen began pushing the claim that vaccines administered after the age of 2 months led to an increase in rates of diabetes in children (his research found that BEFORE 2 months vaccination  that it lowered the rates of diabetes). He largely based this off three avenues of research. The first was studies done in mice using an anthrax vaccine, a vaccine that was rarely used in infants or children. The second was population level studies comparing the rates of diabetes between countries with different immunization schedule (ie countries that vaccinated earlier vs later). The third was a data analysis of a study in Finland of the Haemphlius influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine conducted over 100,000 children. In that study children were either assigned to receive 4 does of vaccine starting at 3 months or a single one at 24 months. He found a slightly larger number of children who received one dose developed diabetes than did the multiple dose group, which he interpreted as meaning children given the vaccine later developed diabetes at a higher rate.

So what's the issue here? All of these claims are extremely dubious for a variety of reasons. The animal research largely used a rarely used vaccine, and besides that animal research is just not directly translatable to human subjects. There's too big a biological difference between mice and people to draw firm conclusions from that alone. The population level studies meanwhile were largely criticized for his failure to consider alternate explanations for his conclusions, for example there can be a number of confounding factors (like rates of sugar consumption) that may influence a children's chance of developing diabetes in one country vs a child of the same age in another or because they looked at vaccines that were rarely used or have been discontinued in use. The Finland data analysis meanwhile didn't include the number of children in each group so there is no way of knowing whether his data was statistically significant.

Critically follow up studies have been unable to replicate his findings, and further study either between vaccines and diabetes in general or vaccines administered later and diabetes have found no evidence for a link. Here's one such study:

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/108/6/e112

It is generally accepted scientific fact (by virtually every scientific group of import) that there is no evidence supporting JB Classen conclusions, although sadly his work is widely quoted in anti-vax circles.

So the two example you just cited of unforeseen vaccine side effects are 1) a widely criticized unsubstantiated claim from a well-known anti-vaxxer and 2) The idea that vaccines may need a booster, which while we did not 'know immediately" was certainly hypothesized to be possible even before the current vaccines were designed.

But your post does illustrate how hard is to combat vaccine information. Something confidently said that sounds scientific is unlikely to be challenged by the public at large who doesn't always understand the protocols in place used to determine the reliability of the underlying  scientific information. That's why as much as people dislike it is better to trust the recommendations on scientists. Your personal research isn't going to reveal some trend they missed, its literally the job of scientists to take the whole collection of data, analyze its strength and weaknesses, and reach an informed conclusion.

Read my next post on the subject. This was an example of markers showing in the short term where the long term outcomes took years to observe.

What I'm pointing out is there was no actual long term effect observed, we know this because we've since extensively studied the association of vaccination and diabetes. And the short term outcome itself was based on very suspect scientific process.

So using that as an "example of markers showing in the short term where the long term outcomes took years to observe" just isn't an accurate statement, because the short term effects might not have even actually been a thing (do to flaws in the experimental design) and the long term effects never actually happened (so short term warnings did not predict long term outcomes).

If your point is that science can spot warning science for potential long term side effects that might not be immediately evident then sure, ya, that can happen. But my problem with your example is its not actually an example of that happening. 
« Last Edit: September 24, 2021, 03:25:35 PM by keevsnick »

Re: Wiggins won't get vaccinated may be banned from playing home games
« Reply #77 on: September 24, 2021, 03:44:30 PM »

Offline gift

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3984
  • Tommy Points: 291
In the last month....I know of 7 people who have been vaxxed and have gotten Covid (all were fine). A good friend of mine was double vaxxed, got Covid and we're pretty sure he gave me Covid over 2 weeks ago--I took Hydroxychloroquine, Azithromycin and Zinc Sulfate, Barely had a fever for a couple of days and am 100% now.

I'm not anti-vax, I just did my research....Nobody could tell me the long term effects of this Vaccination, because NOBODY knows, it's too new. Make your own decisions.

If you did your research, can you name a single vaccine that is harmless within the first two months of injection and causes long-term effects? If you did your research, you know no such vaccine has ever existed.

Off the top of my head, and by no means am I an expert, here are some viruses that cause recurrences and major long-term effects in some people (good luck waiting to find out if COVID-19 will have long-term effects for you):

Human Papilloma Virus -> Certain cancers, recurrences
Epstein Barr Virus -> Certain cancers, certain autoimmune disorders
Human Immunodeficiency Virus -> AIDS if untreated (so much for “natural immunity”), certain cancers even if treated
Herpes -> Recurrences for life
Chickenpox -> Shingles for some later in life
Hepatitis C -> Liver cancer and other issues
Hepatitis B -> liver cancer and other issues

Certainly hope COVID-19 does not have long-term effects similar to the above viruses that emerged in nature (TBD on whether that virus you had emerged in nature), but not interested in personally finding out someday…

Yes, people should do their own research:

1) There is no such thing as a vaccine that causes long-term effects without short-term effects in the first two months following injectio.

2) Billions of doses of the vaccine for COVID-19 have been given with most everybody having no serious side effects in the first two months.

3) Nature is full of viruses that return with a vengeance later in life. Nobody knows if COVID-19 will one day join that list (and at this point, would it really surprise anybody if this was engineered in a lab and has some big surprises for people after an incubation period similar to HIV, which causes illness in the first two weeks of being infected before utterly wrecking havoc on your immune system years later?)

Get vaccinated ASAP, folks…this thing is no joke, the vaccines are harmless and minimize the likelihood of infection/spread, and if you think you’ve got “natural immunity” (whatever that means) to something that may have been developed in a lab in Wuhan and got out by accident (surprise-surprise: the last case of smallpox ever was a lab leak in England in the late 1970s), well, best of luck…or you can just get a harmless shot that minimizes the likelihood of the spike protein having its way with you…if everybody does it and R-naught falls below zero, this thing becomes a thing of the past in America…

While I would say a long term effect of the COVID vaccine that doesn’t show up immediately is the necessity to get another shot, I’ll also point out that not all immediate adverse effects are known immediately. For instance Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine was discovered to negatively effect insulin levels when administered to children after the age of 2. This is associated with higher risk of diabetes but might go on unlinked if not observed via study. It’s an example of long term risk that doesn’t necessarily show up immediately.

Ok, I don't know if you are aware of this or not but you just cited an extremely scientifically dubious claim that largely results from the research of JB Classen, a somewhat notorious anti-vaxxer.

In the late 90's Classen began pushing the claim that vaccines administered after the age of 2 months led to an increase in rates of diabetes in children (his research found that BEFORE 2 months vaccination  that it lowered the rates of diabetes). He largely based this off three avenues of research. The first was studies done in mice using an anthrax vaccine, a vaccine that was rarely used in infants or children. The second was population level studies comparing the rates of diabetes between countries with different immunization schedule (ie countries that vaccinated earlier vs later). The third was a data analysis of a study in Finland of the Haemphlius influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine conducted over 100,000 children. In that study children were either assigned to receive 4 does of vaccine starting at 3 months or a single one at 24 months. He found a slightly larger number of children who received one dose developed diabetes than did the multiple dose group, which he interpreted as meaning children given the vaccine later developed diabetes at a higher rate.

So what's the issue here? All of these claims are extremely dubious for a variety of reasons. The animal research largely used a rarely used vaccine, and besides that animal research is just not directly translatable to human subjects. There's too big a biological difference between mice and people to draw firm conclusions from that alone. The population level studies meanwhile were largely criticized for his failure to consider alternate explanations for his conclusions, for example there can be a number of confounding factors (like rates of sugar consumption) that may influence a children's chance of developing diabetes in one country vs a child of the same age in another or because they looked at vaccines that were rarely used or have been discontinued in use. The Finland data analysis meanwhile didn't include the number of children in each group so there is no way of knowing whether his data was statistically significant.

Critically follow up studies have been unable to replicate his findings, and further study either between vaccines and diabetes in general or vaccines administered later and diabetes have found no evidence for a link. Here's one such study:

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/108/6/e112

It is generally accepted scientific fact (by virtually every scientific group of import) that there is no evidence supporting JB Classen conclusions, although sadly his work is widely quoted in anti-vax circles.

So the two example you just cited of unforeseen vaccine side effects are 1) a widely criticized unsubstantiated claim from a well-known anti-vaxxer and 2) The idea that vaccines may need a booster, which while we did not 'know immediately" was certainly hypothesized to be possible even before the current vaccines were designed.

But your post does illustrate how hard is to combat vaccine information. Something confidently said that sounds scientific is unlikely to be challenged by the public at large who doesn't always understand the protocols in place used to determine the reliability of the underlying  scientific information. That's why as much as people dislike it is better to trust the recommendations on scientists. Your personal research isn't going to reveal some trend they missed, its literally the job of scientists to take the whole collection of data, analyze its strength and weaknesses, and reach an informed conclusion.

Read my next post on the subject. This was an example of markers showing in the short term where the long term outcomes took years to observe.

What I'm pointing out is there was no actual long term effect observed, we know this because we've since extensively studied the association of vaccination and diabetes. And the short term outcome itself was based on very suspect scientific process.

So using that as an "example of markers showing in the short term where the long term outcomes took years to observe" just isn't an accurate statement, because the short term effects might not have even actually been a thing (do to flaws in the experimental design) and the long term effects never actually happened (so short term warnings did not predict long term outcomes).

If your point is that science can spot warning science for potential long term side effects that might not be immediately evident then sure, ya, that can happen. But my problem with your example is its not actually an example of that happening.

Yes that was my point because the criticism was that we’d know in the short term if there were going to be long term consequences. Sometimes short term effects can be associated with long term risks, but we don’t know without further study. That’s why I thought it was a good example. Because it was studied, not just declared.

Re: Wiggins won't get vaccinated may be banned from playing home games
« Reply #78 on: September 24, 2021, 03:50:08 PM »

Online heyvik

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2106
  • Tommy Points: 75
There is really no way to dispute that children age 0-18 are considerably less likely to die from COVID than other, older age groups.

Why would you want to dispute it?  You should celebrate it. 

  If that is what you want to bank your children's health on, OK.  I look at this way, you have two choices, you can send your unvaccinated child to a school where no one is vaccinated and have a small risk of them dying or get the kid vaccinated, and vaccinate all the other kids in the school to have a markedly smaller risk of dying.  It seems like a senseless thing to resist.

It isnt a small risk - it is a near zero risk.  Its like worry about getting hit with an asteroid.  Cars are WAY more deadly to kids, but nobody worries about them.  So not vaxxing kids takes them from from 0.0001% to 0.0002%.  So what.   This also dismisses any reaction to vax either short or longer term.  Vaxxing most kids is not needed.  The arguement that kids need to be vaxed and masked or irrational.

You are simply looking at just deaths.....what about other complications that come along with actually catching it? such as Long Covid, consistent shortness of breath, loss of taste etc...ALL these can be mitigated with a simple vaccination.
I think about high schoolers who aspire to be athletes who get it and lose part of their dream/livelihood.

Re: Wiggins won't get vaccinated may be banned from playing home games
« Reply #79 on: September 24, 2021, 04:33:42 PM »

Offline SDceltGuy

  • NCE
  • Jrue Holiday
  • Posts: 332
  • Tommy Points: 49
If masks don't help in stopping the spread of germs, disease and viruses, why have the medical community been using them for over a century. Seems if "the science" showed that it didn't, doctors and nurses would have stopped using them decades ago? Why has the flu suddenly become almost dormant since people started wearing masks?

Ya masks clearly help. We've long suspected masks help reduce spread of airborne disease because we have a theorized mechanism (they stop droplets from being aerosolized), and we have observational studies (mask use seems to lower spread in areas that use masks). The biggest criticism of masks and their proposed effects in stopping COVID spread have been the lack of randomize clinical trails which for various reasons are hard to conduct on a large enough sample to mean anything. But recent data from a large study in Bangladesh paints a very clear picture that large scale masking is effective.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02457-y

Then there should be clear distinct data showing this is the case - but there isnt.   *IF* surgical masks were correctly and people didnt touch their faces every 5 seconds - yeah maybe - but wearing a dirty bandanna over your face doesnt do much.  You cant expect people to wear masks all day correctly - it is not realistic and is de-humanizing and annoying.  I'm not going to do it and Im not interested in have school kids do it.    You get vaxd if you want, if your scared - you stay home.  Most of us are ready and able to get back to normal.

Re: Wiggins won't get vaccinated may be banned from playing home games
« Reply #80 on: September 24, 2021, 04:35:59 PM »

Offline SDceltGuy

  • NCE
  • Jrue Holiday
  • Posts: 332
  • Tommy Points: 49

You are simply looking at just deaths.....what about other complications that come along with actually catching it? such as Long Covid, consistent shortness of breath, loss of taste etc...ALL these can be mitigated with a simple vaccination.
I think about high schoolers who aspire to be athletes who get it and lose part of their dream/livelihood.

Please show data where kids are developing long term symptoms at a significant rate.  All of our HS are athletes and none have shown any effects.   

Re: Wiggins won't get vaccinated may be banned from playing home games
« Reply #81 on: September 24, 2021, 04:43:43 PM »

Offline kraidstar

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5368
  • Tommy Points: 2478
How do you THINK you got Covid? If you think you have it, go get tested, otherwise you don't know.  I've heard this nonsense from people in my circles. Then two that said it, got Covid, one was hospitalized for a week and now has heart issues. The other was sick as a dog at home for two weeks. Both ended up giving it to loved ones, including my nephew who is a teenager.

All (2 adults + 5 kids 10-18yrs) in my family has had it - confirmed via testing.  Once initial data started showing no real risk to healthy sub 60 yr old people we decided to not worry about and just get it over and out of the way.  We did our quarantine and then went about life which wasnt too difficult here in SD.  This is how low risk viruses (for most people) have always been dealt with and is the most logical way to handle them.   

You do understand that everyone is going to get it eventually.  These halfassed vaxs arent very good, so are you going to mask, distance and degrade you life forever? Because that is how long Covid will likely be with us.

Actually, I don't understand that.  Can you explain why that is?  Is everyone going to get Polio and Small Pox too?  Or is only the COVID vaccine not very good?  How does that work exactly?  How are the vaccines or the immune responses different?

Polio is spread through oral ingestion of fecal matter.

Smallpox is not a true airborne disease, and has obvious symptoms that appear when one becomes highly contagious. The sores and pustules, awful as they are, are a dead giveaway of infection and outbreak and made it much easier to isolate and eradicate.

Covid on the other hand is far more contagious through the air, and the infected are often asymptomatic. Vaccinated/immune individuals seem to be able to spread the disease pretty easily. At my cousin's business everyone is vaccinated and they literally all caught covid, passing it around the office.

It will not be eradicated, and you will indeed eventually get it. Get used to the idea.

Re: Wiggins won't get vaccinated may be banned from playing home games
« Reply #82 on: September 24, 2021, 04:50:23 PM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11228
  • Tommy Points: 860
If masks don't help in stopping the spread of germs, disease and viruses, why have the medical community been using them for over a century. Seems if "the science" showed that it didn't, doctors and nurses would have stopped using them decades ago? Why has the flu suddenly become almost dormant since people started wearing masks?

Ya masks clearly help. We've long suspected masks help reduce spread of airborne disease because we have a theorized mechanism (they stop droplets from being aerosolized), and we have observational studies (mask use seems to lower spread in areas that use masks). The biggest criticism of masks and their proposed effects in stopping COVID spread have been the lack of randomize clinical trails which for various reasons are hard to conduct on a large enough sample to mean anything. But recent data from a large study in Bangladesh paints a very clear picture that large scale masking is effective.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02457-y

Then there should be clear distinct data showing this is the case - but there isnt.   *IF* surgical masks were correctly and people didnt touch their faces every 5 seconds - yeah maybe - but wearing a dirty bandanna over your face doesnt do much.  You cant expect people to wear masks all day correctly - it is not realistic and is de-humanizing and annoying.  I'm not going to do it and Im not interested in have school kids do it.    You get vaxd if you want, if your scared - you stay home.  Most of us are ready and able to get back to normal.

You are still mixing up two different scenarios.  One is whether or not the mask will prevent the virus from getting from the air to your nose or throat.  This part is very difficult to study in a controlled environment as there are many different conditions.  But remember that it is not the virus by itself that gets into your nose, it is a water droplet with a viable virus attached.  Even if one droplet gets by your mask, there are many factors that impact the process before you are actually infected.

But the real value of the masks is when an infected person, who is spreading the virus, is wearing a mask.  There have been many studies (I have not had a chance to read the latest one posted above) that clearly show that far fewer water droplets will become airborne if the infected person is wearing a mask.  This reduces the ability of an infected person to infect others in a significant way.

So if a kid comes to school, is infected but doesn't know it, if he or she is wearing a mask, far less other kids will be at risk.  If the other kids are wearing a mask, it is even better.  Of course if all the kids are vaccinated, you wouldn't have to worry about any of this.

Re: Wiggins won't get vaccinated may be banned from playing home games
« Reply #83 on: September 24, 2021, 05:03:24 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48120
  • Tommy Points: 8794
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
If masks don't help in stopping the spread of germs, disease and viruses, why have the medical community been using them for over a century. Seems if "the science" showed that it didn't, doctors and nurses would have stopped using them decades ago? Why has the flu suddenly become almost dormant since people started wearing masks?

Ya masks clearly help. We've long suspected masks help reduce spread of airborne disease because we have a theorized mechanism (they stop droplets from being aerosolized), and we have observational studies (mask use seems to lower spread in areas that use masks). The biggest criticism of masks and their proposed effects in stopping COVID spread have been the lack of randomize clinical trails which for various reasons are hard to conduct on a large enough sample to mean anything. But recent data from a large study in Bangladesh paints a very clear picture that large scale masking is effective.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02457-y

Then there should be clear distinct data showing this is the case - but there isnt.   *IF* surgical masks were correctly and people didnt touch their faces every 5 seconds - yeah maybe - but wearing a dirty bandanna over your face doesnt do much.  You cant expect people to wear masks all day correctly - it is not realistic and is de-humanizing and annoying.  I'm not going to do it and Im not interested in have school kids do it.    You get vaxd if you want, if your scared - you stay home.  Most of us are ready and able to get back to normal.

You are still mixing up two different scenarios.  One is whether or not the mask will prevent the virus from getting from the air to your nose or throat.  This part is very difficult to study in a controlled environment as there are many different conditions.  But remember that it is not the virus by itself that gets into your nose, it is a water droplet with a viable virus attached.  Even if one droplet gets by your mask, there are many factors that impact the process before you are actually infected.

But the real value of the masks is when an infected person, who is spreading the virus, is wearing a mask.  There have been many studies (I have not had a chance to read the latest one posted above) that clearly show that far fewer water droplets will become airborne if the infected person is wearing a mask.  This reduces the ability of an infected person to infect others in a significant way.

So if a kid comes to school, is infected but doesn't know it, if he or she is wearing a mask, far less other kids will be at risk.  If the other kids are wearing a mask, it is even better.  Of course if all the kids are vaccinated, you wouldn't have to worry about any of this.
Also, it protects the people in the school, like teachers, maintenance, administration, guidance, cafeteria workers, etc. from getting the disease who are at a significantly larger risk of health issues if they get the disease.

Listen, if masks didn't work, the medical community would have stopped wearing them a half century or more ago. An industry that has progressed as much as the healthcare industry has in it's technology and knowledge, has science backing up that masks work. Thinking otherwise, is simply sticking your head in the sand because you want to believe in "freedoms".

Just get the vax and mask up. It's very little sacrifice to help America and your fellow citizens. It's a sacrifice, yes, but compare it to the other sacrifices we make when our country is threatened.

Look at the liberties that were "lost" after 9/11. The sacrifices made by the military and their families since then. The sacrifices made to fight Communism after WWII. The unreal sacrifices during the two World Wars.

And people b!tch about wearing a mask. Unreal.

Re: Wiggins won't get vaccinated may be banned from playing home games
« Reply #84 on: September 25, 2021, 12:42:19 AM »

Offline GreenlyGreeny

  • NCE
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2116
  • Tommy Points: 94
Here for basketball, not politics. Sorry.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2021, 10:35:13 PM by GreenlyGreeny »

Re: Wiggins won't get vaccinated may be banned from playing home games
« Reply #85 on: September 25, 2021, 02:45:51 AM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48120
  • Tommy Points: 8794
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
For those pointing to so-called “natural immunity” and “do your own research” and “it does not hurt the kids” while trotting out discredited misinformation about the supposed long-term effects of an obscure vaccine developed with 1970s/1980s technology (again, there is no vaccine known to scientists that causes long-term side effects without short-term side effects occurring in the first two months following injection):

This thing is mutating at a highly unusual rate in highly unusual ways, perhaps unlike any virus known to have arisen in nature. Given the continued denial of reality by certain Americans, the USA is increasingly becoming a petri dish—there’s no telling whether there will be a future mutation that is extremely deadly and/or debilitating to children. If that happens, then what? Why even allow the possibility of such a tragedy?

And we have not even touched on debilitating long-haul symptoms in this thread…

The rational, scientific, data-driven course of action is to get everyone ages 12+ fully vaccinated ASAP through whatever means necessary, with all ages masking up in public spaces indoors until we drive the the R-naught below one in America, so we can become the first in the world to truly eradicate the virus from our nation. That is truly putting America first. The second course of action is help the rest of the world achieve this outcome. This course closely replicates how we eradicated smallpox and polio many decades ago, so there‘s the playbook and the historical evidence that the playbook works.

“Natural immunity,” “do your own research,” and all of this disinformation out there was ultimately created/propagated by the Kremlin, the Communist Party of China and their unwitting pawns. They want to make America decline, not put America first. The Kremlin and the Communist Party of China want you and your loved ones to be sick forever and/or dead. They are manipulating Americans in order to serve their own interests. They are the real enemy, not your fellow Americans…


Just a little levity.😀😃😄😁😂

Re: Wiggins won't get vaccinated may be banned from playing home games
« Reply #86 on: September 25, 2021, 03:55:41 AM »

Offline GreenlyGreeny

  • NCE
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2116
  • Tommy Points: 94
Here for basketball, not politics. Sorry.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2021, 10:34:57 PM by GreenlyGreeny »

Re: Wiggins won't get vaccinated may be banned from playing home games
« Reply #87 on: September 25, 2021, 04:51:43 AM »

Offline ozgod

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16788
  • Tommy Points: 1362
I posted this in the Covid thread in the CE forum but for those who don't have access or desire to access that forum here it is. Two basketball players in Australia's NBL League have been cut from their teams due to refusal to get vaccinated. Not because there's a vaccine mandate from their league, which there isn't, but because in Australia their states are currently closed to each other and are only planning to reopen to allow vaccinated people to travel so they wouldn't be able to travel to games, just like Wiggins.

I wonder how long before Andrew's contract is torn up, or will they just decide to have him as a passenger for a number of the games. Of it it will affect other NBA players who are unvaccinated, who may have to travel to places like Toronto where I think the Canadians will require proof of vaccination before visas are issued. I thought it would affect the NHL as well but it looks like the NHL has 97% vaccination rate.

Quote
Illawarra Hawks cut ties with unvaxxed import Travis Trice
21 Sep, 2021

The Illawarra Hawks have become the second NBL club in as many days to cut ties with a player due to their refusal to being vaccinated against COVID-19.

Import Travis Trice signed a one-year deal with the Hawks for the upcoming 2021/22 season, but the American guard, who mutually agreed to the decision with the club, will no longer venture Down Under.

"Sadly I won't be suiting up in a Hawks uniform this season," Trice said. "The decision was made in the best interests of both parties and I wish the Hawks all the best for the upcoming season."

Hawks president and co-owner Dorry Kordahi said while he is left disappointed, the circumstance is understandable.

"We fully respect Travis' views and freedom of choice in regards to the vaccine, but being unvaccinated was going to result in numerous challenges, especially as we are still firmly in the midst of the pandemic," Kordahi said.

"We wish Travis all the best but have immediately turned our attention to a replacement."

The decision follows that of the New Zealand Breakers, who released star Tai Webster for similar reasons despite re-signing with the club for two years in July.

The 26-year-old's anti-vax stance will limit his ability to play basketball and travel freely within Australia under restrictions to be imposed by state governments.

The Breakers are likely to begin the 2021-22 NBL season based in Australia because of international travel restrictions.

"Tai was amazing for us last year and we wish him the absolute best," Breakers owner Matt Walsh said.

"I fully support each player's freedom of choice in regards to the vaccine.

"The club will keep the door open for Tai, but unfortunately we are living in extraordinary times and without being vaccinated he will not have freedom of travel which would allow him to play for us this season."


The NBL will not mandate vaccinations for players or staff.

However, commissioner Jeremy Loeliger said this month the league "will continue to educate our people and will strongly recommend it (getting vaccinated)".

https://www.espn.com.au/nbl/story/_/id/32247269/nbl-illawarra-hawks-cut-anti-vax-american-point-guard-travis-trice

I looked more into the freedom of travel thing they were talking about as the reason why these players were cut and it's apparently because the NBL is comprised of teams from different Australian states, some of which have borders still closed to each other, and there is a New Zealand team as well and NZ currently has its borders closed to Australia:

Quote
It was an amicable decision, which the National Basketball League team said was arrived at because it had become increasingly clear unvaccinated players won’t enjoy the same “activities and freedoms” as those who are, and that might stop them from being able to carry out their job.

“Tai was amazing for us last year and we wish him the absolute best. I fully support each player’s freedom of choice in regards to the vaccine,” said Breakers owner Matt Walsh said.

“The club will keep the door open for Tai, but unfortunately we are living in extraordinary times and, without being vaccinated, he will not have freedom of travel which would allow him to play for us this season.”

Due to trans-Tasman travel difficulties, the Breakers are expected to begin the new NBL season in Melbourne next month. The decision to dump Webster appears to have been made in response to the new Victorian road map out of lockdown, which was released on Sunday and the Breakers referred to in a statement.

But there is nothing in it, or NSW’s plan, that would have explicitly blocked Webster from playing in the NBL. Nor are any of the country’s top professional competitions likely to mandate that all players are to be vaccinated, but such are the noises they are hearing out of government about what the future will hold after this Delta outbreak that it may as well be compulsory.

The expectation is that, when states begin to open up, only vaccinated people will be able to fly on certain airlines, cross state borders, or go to particular stadiums. Some states may also impose harsher restrictions than others. That could mean unvaccinated players are unable to travel freely to play matches or even get onto the field, which the NBL explicitly foreshadowed earlier this month.


That alone may not be enough to put an athlete in breach of their contract, particularly if they can still attend training and carry out other off-field duties. But it would probably prompt a conversation between player and team about whether it is a relationship worth persisting with.

There are no vaccine mandates in the “big four” leagues in the US, or in many top European soccer competitions, but unvaccinated players are subject to more arduous protocols and regular testing regimes. They also generally travel on private planes. In Australia, not only is there a more conservative regulatory landscape, but footy players fly commercial, and some sporting bodies simply don’t have the financial capacity to put those sort of measures in place – especially after the last two years.


https://www.smh.com.au/sport/basketball/we-are-living-in-extraordinary-times-nbl-team-cuts-player-due-to-anti-vax-stance-20210920-p58t79.html

Any odd typos are because I suck at typing on an iPhone :D

Re: Wiggins won't get vaccinated may be banned from playing home games
« Reply #88 on: September 25, 2021, 05:08:51 AM »

Kiorrik

  • Guest
I'm so over reports like these.

People need to get over themselves. Get vaccinated and move on. It's how life's been since the inception of vaccination. Why suddenly all the discourse.

We honestly live in the dumbest of timelines.

Re: Wiggins won't get vaccinated may be banned from playing home games
« Reply #89 on: September 25, 2021, 10:00:30 AM »

Offline timpiker

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1696
  • Tommy Points: 112
I'll bet Cryee tries to do the same.