Hapless Bills Fan

He was in to pass block on the 4th and 8 where Josh thought he had a "free play" and threw to Davis. That's the play where Dawkins got pwned by Ingram on a spin move. the IOL got forced back. Singletary wound up ahead of the line looking for someone to block, but he was definitely in there to block. This

Today I learned: My initial reaction was "Silver isn't magnetic, if you're eating high class. Stainless steel isn't magnetic if you're eating ordinary Joe class. So WTF are these people using to eat their goulash?" Being an experimentalist, I took the strongest magnet I could grab quickly, carried it to the silverware drawer, and pulled out a fork. I learned my stainless steel flatware is, indeed, magnetic. Still doesn't stick to my chest, though.

FWIW Sanders was "Full" in practice today. Didn't see this elsewhere:

Do it. Don't Trust a Mammal Dolphins are marine Mammals ***** that Squish the Fish

Is this something McD or Daboll said, or your deduction? And if the latter can you walk me through it?

I suppose Tim needs something to write about.

What @Rochesterfan said really resonated with me because what we saw in May after the CDC said vaccinated people no longer have to wear masks, is that everyone took them off. Busy stores would have like 3 people (probably all vaccinated) wearing masks. The stores could do nothing, because they have no way to tell who is vaccinated or not. If it's the "honor system" and honor fails, what can ya do? In places which reverted to "everyone mask indoors please" mask wearing went way up.

There's some. I would summarize it as "at least 6-8 months, starts waning and some evidence it is reduced by about a year." There are caveats and of course as with vaccine-induced immunity it's not 100% protection. The same may be true of vaccine induced immunity. Would it be OK if I put the papers up over in the Covid facts thread and gave a shout when it's there?

That last is a common belief, especially beloved by some conspiracy theorists (to be clear, I'm not saying you are a conspiracy theorist). The problem with natural immunity is that to get there, you have to catch and recover from Covid, which doesn't work out so well for some. There is a recent peer reviewed, published study in New England Journal of Medicine of 880,000 people per arm (out of 4.7M person dataset, ~37%) comparing adverse events from the Covid vaccine to complications from natural infection. It's unambiguous that natural infection has far more complications. The preponderance of evidence is people with natural immunity have very good protection against reinfection. The duration is unclear, but then so is the duration of protection from the vaccines. There is a study of 16,000 people per arm out of a database of 2.5 million people on a preprint server. It asserts that those who were infected by Covid have actually significantly better protection, as you say but 1) I am concerned about the 1.4% sample size 2) as of yet, it is not peer-reviewed or published. A problem, as @Rochesterfan points out, is that determining who has immunity is a bit of an unsolved problem at present. I would not be a fan of "privileging" people by degrees of immunity.

What you're saying above makes perfect sense and explains pretty clearly why the "negative test results" option wasn't used. I was unaware of the current NYS policies on masking. Masking has been "out of style" in MO for a while now, except probably among vaccinated people who feel as you describe. So last Sunday they did the experiment on asking fans to mask, and the fans "voted with their faces". So clearly saying "welcome unvaccinated person with a negative test, please follow NYS guidelines and mask indoors" would be a non-starter. Thanks for the very clear explanation.

It's a valid point that natural immunity has deserved more study than it has received. On the other hand, there is some reasonable evidence that one shot will boost natural immunity to greater heights, and no evidence that it will cause any harms. If you're "science trusting", what holds you back?

Enough. This is a football forum. This is a thread where the normal rules have been slackened to discuss a new policy at the stadium that directly affects fans and involves covid and vaccination. The first sentence of your post was already answered reasonably with info from PSE. If your interest is discussing slippery-slope arguments, government control, government overreach, so on and so forth, take it to PPP or (as one guy said above) Twitter where Anything Goes. Rachel Bush will 💓 you. Everyone else, please listen up - we are trying to allow all discussion that is reasonably pertinent to the new Highmark Stadium entry requirements but going on and on for multiple posts about government overreach and control over the last 18 months and the hypothetical next 18 months is broadening the scope way too far and is NOT contributing positively to the goal of allowing reasonable discussion.

Dude, give it a rest. Is natural immunity important, sure it is. No one is saying you can't speak of it. But there is no definitive evidence that people with "natural immunity" and a negative recent antigen test are "the safest people to be around"., That's your personal Beaten Horse, and you're not discussing it - you're treating it as unquestionable dogma. They clearly could have asked for a vaccine card or a negative test. I don't know why they didn't. Maybe they looked at fan demographics and decided they would overload the RT-PCR testing capacity of WNY. Maybe they looked at the logistics of asking ushers to review documented negative tests and decided it was a nightmare. Maybe they had a modeling team look at the impact of the false negative rate of antigen tests and said "Oh Hell Noes". You don't know why they didn't either, but you're strongly asserting it's not motivated by public health, again, as unquestionable dogma. Then you get into all sorts of other stuff, "never-ending overreach" "abuse of power". It doesn't belong here. Give it a rest.

Plenz described above, with a link. Three Cheers! https://www.clearme.com/vaccine-validation

Whether or not it is (and that reads like one of those "truth but not whole truth" things to me), it doesn't apply to the studies I mentioned and which were being dismissed as "I don't believe the CDC" by a guy here. One of them was a large study of healthcare workers (vaccinated and unvaccinated) who have been followed since January. They agree to be tested every week. All positive test results were included as cases. It's quite sterling work. This is the pre-print, unreviewed study I alluded to earlier when I said I have questions about it. They had health records on 2.5 MILLION people. They pulled a subset of 18,000 matched vaccinated and unvaccinated people from that 2.5 million person dataset. That's 1.4%. Population studies like this are "outside my lane", but if I went to my former boss and told him I'd selected a 1.4% subset of my data to analyze he'd have told me to "GTFO and come back with the full dataset". I think it raises questions about whether, in trying to match the reference and experiment group and limiting the dataset so severely, they inadvertently introduced other bias factors they weren't aware of. Maybe it's well done, like I said it's a bit outside my lane. So Imma wait until that one gets peer-reviewed and published, especially as it's out-of-sync with several reasonably sized studies in US, UK, and Europe which show good natural immunity slotting in with vaccine-induced immunity (better than some, not as good as others). Point is, in expressing hesitance about that study, I can give reasons, I'm not just "I don't believe data from Israel" or something. Not a fan of antibody tests for several reasons. Natural immunity is important, no doubt, and deserves consideration, but show me a positive RT-PCR test. I would have liked to see negative test results within 48 hrs accepted myself, but I don't know the demographics of vaccinated vs unvaccinated ticket holders. I can see the potential for real logistical issues and a burden on WNY testing capacity or for a high false negative rate, depending upon test choice. It Is What It is.

I agree with not ridiculing or insulting people who aren't vaccinated or don't want to be vaccinated. For one thing, I know a lot of them. While I disagree, they by and large aren't ignorant or idiots or any of the other labels that get tossed around cheaply. (Some are, but that's true everywhere). There's just an absolute deluge of misinformation out there, a lot of it dressed up to look plausible and really takes someone who knows their stuff to deconstruct. As I said on another thread, I added it up and I must have spent 3-4 weeks of my life by now watching and reading stuff that folks sent me and talking to people about it (and I mean talking, not debating or degrading) BTW. I know a bunch of people who have suppressed immune systems for various reasons....ALL of them are vaccinated on their physician's advice. Many have gotten a booster, a few are waiting. I'm not saying there aren't people who have a medical reason not to be vaxxed, but they are far fewer than some believe. The question is when immunocompromised people get vaccinated, is it effective or are they still very much at risk? I believe it was nuts at your local bar last night. It was nuts on here, frankly, and we tried to take out the worst stuff. My point is that the folks who were "giving it back to them" were probably already divided from the "I'll never watch the Bills again over this!" folks, they just weren't starting bar fights over it a week ago.

Agree. I would completely believe that it might have been the case back in April-mid June and even into July most places outside of MO. Delta changed things.

I agree. Yeah I forget who it was, but I've seen a couple of stories here and a couple elsewhere. It's actually quite common thing around here, along with abusing people who choose to get vaccinated. Most of my rural-living relatives who got vaccinated did so as privately as they could and didn't tell anyone outside of a couple trusted family members for that reason, they didn't want to be ostracized or abused. When my kid visited for Christmas from NYS she was shocked by the amount of what stopped short of abuse, but what I'll call "mask aggressiveness" for want of a better term, meaning unmasked people who see a person going about their own business and wearing a mask, and deliberately get in their space and their face and even follow them around.

Right, and a friend of mine who lives in Boise ID was talking to me about the two nurses he just helped move into new digs. Their hospital is stuffed to the gills with people who are sicker then dogs, in the ICU or overflowed out onto med/surg floors with a team of ICU and surg nurses treating them. And the vast majority of them are unvaccinated. Parts of ID are rationing care and like GA, calling in National Guard for help because they can't afford to pay enough to attract enough contract nurses like @aristocrat's lady, competing with more affluent areas of the country. I glanced at that Atlantic study and shook my head because it just doesn't match the data from so many states where I know "boots on the ground" and see an overall parallel between the hospitalization curve and the ICU curve. And like a lot of media coverage it doesn't do a good job of putting the context up front. When I have time, I'll look at it more carefully and look into the sources and see what's behind it. I wonder if it's data where overall hospitalization numbers from the very populated and more vaccinated NE which have space to hospitalize people who aren't very ill, are swamping out numbers from the less populated and less vaccinated Midwest and South and presenting a skewed picture.

Dude, you've been given logic and explanations, and you aren't accepting them. Whatever, but let's not pretend you're the sole arbiter on the soundness of logic and reason. I get it you're frustrated, and that's understandable. But a policy doesn't have to be perfect and fit every case to be logically sound over a population.

If you're concerned by that, fortunately for you, there's an alternative: Don't get an mRNA vaccine, get the J&J. My immediate family is all mRNA-vaccine dosed, but my relatives who live in those low-vaxxed areas all chose J&J. I personally think the mRNA vaccines are better, but I 100% support their choice: they got vaccinated with the vaccine that made them most comfortable Adenovirus vaccines were used by the military since the 1970s, and adenovirus vector vaccines date to the 1980s. EU approved an adenovirus vector vaccine for Ebola in 2020.

Because when safety is raised as an issue, questioning someone's aesthetic judgements is truly persuasive.

Buff, I love ya man. But here's the thing: The "divide and conquer" was already there before Sunday, when people who didn't want to take the risk of being in a crowded stadium with unmasked, unvaccinated, untested people quietly sold their tickets and didn't come to the game. Fact. It was there last Sunday when people who attended under the "mask-indoors, unvaccinated mask at all times" rule showed up, saw very few masks, and as some have recounted were even harassed and abused for wearing masks - when their compliance is certainly not an imposition on anyone else. Fact. So you can't claim that "Now there are two sides", just because some people who don't like the new mandate are being loud and noisy about it. The two sides have been there and been divided all along. The people who were uncomfortable before just generally aren't the sort who yell about lawsuits and infringement of personal liberty and complain "you can't just lock us up in our houses all the time" Come to think of it, I've heard some variation of almost those exact words for the last year: "I"m not afraid, if you're afraid you avoid me and stay home" Yes, this happens especially in high-exposure situations like a family living together. The attack rate for Delta is something like 60% for co-residents whereas the original strain was 10-30%. There is still a reduction in spread that has been shown by several careful large studies, NFL, etc.

I do agree that it would have been the higher standard of customer service for the Bills to agree to refund all single-game tickets as well.

Actually a number of scientists have said, not that it prevents the spread altogether but that it reduces it. With Delta, vaccines decrease the chances of both being infected (in which case you can't spread) and shortens the duration in which you're carrying a high titer in your upper respiratory tract (if you are infected, which is 3-7x less likely, you're infectious for less time). Both reduce spread. Very few vaccines prevent spread altogether, that's called "sterilizing immunity" and is sort of the Holy Grail for vaccine development.