Hapless Bills Fan

They sure do. I'm just unclear on when and where it has proven itself as a positive strategy to achieve change.

Vaccines with years of data behind them were once new vaccines. Many of them wouldn't have had the desired public health impact, if the relevant populations hadn't been willing to take them as soon as they were available - not years later. How many years do you need, when millions of doses have been administered? Question: what are the heart issue and blood clot risks from Covid-19 disease? How do they compare to those risks from the vaccine? Here's a study from a group at Oxford showing that the risks of blood clots is significantly higher from covid-19 disease than from the vaccine, including in people who were not ill enough to be hospitalized and 30% under 30 years old: https://osf.io/a9jdq/ Here's a recent JAMA study of college athletes (young healthy studs) in which 2.3% (2,300 per 100,000) showed evidence of cardiomyopathies on MRI. Symptom-based evidence was 0.3% (300 per 100,000). The CDC is currently concerned about reports of 475 vaccine recipients under 30 with possible myocarditis or pericarditis. I can't find the number of vaccine recipients under 30, but per CDC there are 3.4M vaccine recipients under age 18. Therefore the upper bound of people under 18 with possible vaccine-related cardiomyopathies is 14 per 100,000. This would be based on symptoms, so the comparator number would be 300 per 100,000 or roughly 21x more from disease. Your decision, obviously, but if it's to be considered a rational and logical one, it has to factor in the risks on both sides, not show 'recency bias' by considering vaccine risks that have been widely talked about recently, while disease risks to healthy <30s have gotten far less Airplay. Current data are saying that even with the risk of vaccine side effects, the risk to young healthy people from the disease is objectively greater.

I understand that perception differs, but I see all the posts we hide. I think it's pretty clear the "moral superiority" viewpoint rolls both ways, as do the insults.

This is a good study and a good article about it. A note of caution that the number of relevant people (prevously infected, unvaccinated) they followed was small: 1,359 out of 52,238 people. That's less than 3% of the study population, which is always a "caution" flag to making conclusions. The study also ended in May 2021. As it notes, The other point is that in UK, they had a policy of "1 shot per cot" to extend vaccine supplies, but are now finding 1 shot doesn't give the desired protection against their current predominant variant (Delta) - but 2 shots do. That would be an argument for people who have been infected following Gandhi's suggestion: Still, there is some evidence backing the idea that if J&J recipients are considered vaccinated, players and coaches who can provide evidence of a positive covid-19 PCR test should also be treated as vaccinated. At a very minimum, I think it would be reasonable for these folks to point the NFL/NFLPA medical advisors/committee at the evidence and ask why this isn't considered.

Hi. Just a little note that the above reflect experience with the initial variants circulating. For the Delta variant currently causing >90% of infections in UK (and likely to predominate in US in a few), data suggest 79% protective against infection and 88% protective against severe disease for the mRNA vaccines. No data on J&J; AZ (similar technology but 2 doses) 67%. One dose of AZ was 30%. Still very effective at preventing severe disease and death.

Could we? I have a post in this thread about "back to normal" in MO. "15 days to slow the spread" was based on the premise that there would be a coherent response put in place - "test trace isolate" and other mitigation measures, on a national scale. Did that happen? No. No, it did not. Where do science and medicine tell me that the combination of natural immunity and vaccination have us at herd immunity already? What is the duration of natural immunity from Covid? How many of those vaccinated contracted Covid and should be subtracted from the natural immunity column? There is an equation usually used to calculate the fraction of immune or vaccinated people required for herd immunity. It depends upon a value for Ro. What value for Ro should be used for the current predominant variants? I'm actually looking for answers to these questions, so I'd really appreciate being pointed at the facts.

IMO, they can and should. I'm not persuaded starting a twitter controversy and calling the NFLPA a "joke" is a very effective means to this end; it seems to me more like emotional venting, which in many people turns out to be a substitute for actually trying to do something effective. But I'd actually be quite happy if you could explain to me some examples of effecting change via twitter controversy that show why I'm mistaken.

#1 I'm still not following your argument here. I agree: the NYS DPH (or DOH, whatevs) decision to send covid-19 positive patients back to nursing homes regardless of the home's isolation and infection control abilities was a Bad Decision, and it cost lives. Why does a bad decision made by a government group, have any bearing on the policies of a different group (NFL medical advisors, NFL/NFLPA committee that worked this problem)? The NFL did a GREAT job of containing Covid infections in the NFL last year, changing protocols during the season in reaction to actual observed patterns of spread and to community infections. With regard to Covid-19, the NFL was one of the safest places to be. That seems to me to argue that unlike the NYS decision on the nursing homes, the NFL medical advisors know WTF they are doing. In a nutshell: why does one organization's bad decision logically make a different organization's protocols "idiotic", in the face of demonstrated competence? That seems to me like the "non sequitor", "does not follow". (We're not doing "Supreme Leader" and make this political here - free pass because I asked you to explain but don't push it, please.) #2 your statement was "lock themselves in their room alone". The actual restriction seems to be: So the player is free to leave his room and interact with others in the team traveling party, looks like to me.

Not just that, but if there's a substantial % of unvaccinated players (I would bet on it), if the Bills coaches and FO look the other way for one unvaccinated player who is a veteran and has the respect of the team, why wouldn't other players follow suit and do likewise? That could potentially lead to a covid-19 outbreak on the team, losing availability of a bunch of key players for key games, and potentially fines and punishment of the Bills by the NFL.

You do understand that logically, that doesn't follow? Try applying that logic to another situation. Let's say seatbelts. "So TeddyKGB wore his seatbelt and was injured in an automobile accident. Kind of makes you understand why some folks aren't interested in wearing them" Whatchoo think of that logic?

From your link: "For childern 14 and younger, Florida’s COVID-19 mortality rate is 0.009%, far below the 0.01% for flu for that age group" 0.009% is within 0.001% of 0.01%. One of those numbers is slightly below the other. Depending upon how many cases they include, they may statistically speaking be the same number. But I'm not sure what the general point is: young children are the group that is least impacted by covid-19 disease.

Um, No.

If your point is that the media covers a lot of things in a very sensational and unrealistic way, I completely agree with you!!!!!!!. Oh that's not enough !. !!!!!!!! There are people I've met who, in my judgement, have a logical and reasoned stance as to why they're not getting vaccinated, and you may be one of them, I give benefit of the doubt since I don't know you or your reasons. The thing to ask if you've guarded against, is the "boy who cried wolf" effect where, because there is undeniably, sensational media coverage, it means there aren't in fact, emerging problems here. I Get It, "pandemic fatigue" is a real thing. But logical and reasonable people know sensational media coverage doesn't mean some problems aren't real, can we agree on that? If more people are getting sick, they are sick independent of media coverage? Variants aren't news. RNA viruses like Sars-Cov2 mutate at the rate of about 1 mutation every 2 weeks. When close to half a million people a day started getting infected in India, virologists said "ruh ro" because math says 15 million people/month x 2 mutations/month is a helluva selective incubator for viral mutations. Shortly, it turned out they predominantly were being infected with this new variant, now termed "Delta" and public health folks raised one eyebrow. When it became the predominant strain in UK and cases started surging despite the country being ~60% vaxxed (many with just one shot, due to UK policy), the other eyebrow went up. Turns out that while two shots still provide about 80-85% protection against Delta, one shot is not so good. Epidemiology in Britain, where they have pretty decent contact tracing, has shown it seems to have an Ro of 4-5 in the same locales where the original strain had Ro~2. Binding studies have shown that Delta binds more effectively to the cell receptor. Titer studies have shown it maintains a higher titer longer in infected people. Higher titer = more infectious. If the press all disappeared tomorrow and there were no "fear tactics" or sensational media coverage, all these observations would still be here, can we agree on that? It's claimed it's only 10% of infections in US at present, but frankly, our sequencing efforts are puny. Counties here in MO that had almost no Covid infections and were colored pale yellow or green a month ago now look like this (map below), spreading out from an initial cluster of 2 counties in the North and 1 in the South. They test wastewater streams here in MO and finding Delta. BTW, these are the counties where 70-80% of the population has made a rational and logical decision (I kid! I kid! It can be true, but these people are my rellies and friends and it usually isn't. THE FERRETS!) to not be vaccinated, despite early and high vaccine availability to them. Since almost no place in MO has had mask mandates or any kind of restrictions, ever, when you see change like this charted, there is probably an explanation other than "fear mongering" and again, if the media went away and there was no sensational coverage, the hospitals would still be re-opening their covid wards and the doctors would still be reporting that the patients they hospitalize are 1) unvaccinated 2) younger. By the way, we have a MO Covid guy on Facebook, just a private citizen, who collects publicly available Covid data independent of media or State or Federal gov't, and his data show the same thing, so it's not somehow media created. There may be a new surge with this variant, there may not be - no need to fuss about it, since people by and large aren't changing their mind about getting vaccinated. It will either happen, or it won't. And yeah, places like nursing homes and rehab centers where a large # of unvaxxed staff care for 90% vaxxed patients will see unnecessary illness and death. Shouldn't be as bad this time, but they don't have to happen if people would just wrap their mind around the notion that their choices to be vaccinated do, in fact, affect others including those who medically can't be vaccinated or those who are vaccinated but their immune systems don't work as well - and be willing to get their info from multiple different factual sources, not from "fear mongering media" and social media. Ciao!

Could you rewrite the first two lines in English please? Also, have you actually read the NFL's protocols for non vaccinated players? There is no requirement to "lock yourself in your room without visitors". I agree that they're creating a caste system with punishments for violations. But there are health impacts of those who aren't vaccinated on those who are. So I'm not sure how one could allow freedom of choice about vaccination without (effectively) creating a caste system by having different restrictions on unvaccinated folks.

Both can be true, correct? One can simultaneously recognize that vaccination is a broader public health issue that goes beyond the individual, AND not "force" people to be vaccinated? This I don't understand.

The requirements vary a bit more than that, @Buffalo716. In the 12 or 14 or whatever states that allow philosophical exemption, you're correct. In some of the other states, you have to demonstrate that you're a practicing member of a religion that absolutely objects to vaccines, such as Christian Scientists or groups that believe in faith healing. That's a small point, I know, but the point is in most states, it's more than "it's against my philosophies" "OK" Force isn't the issue; if you want your children to attend daycare or public school, then vaccination is mandatory (with very limited exceptions).

I can't wrap my head around the concept of a state "disagreeing", but allowing vaccine exemptions for personal or religious belief doesn't mean that those states disagree that "Vaccination is a broader public health issue that goes beyond the individual. " To the contrary, I think public health officials in those states agree that vaccination is a broader public health issue that goes beyond the individual, but they also recognize that public health and religious freedom can be balanced provided the number of "opt outs" are small enough that herd immunity can accommodate them. It's also proven to be an issue because the exemptions are usually not random - they tend to cluster in a geographical area around a group of families that tend to have regular contact, and outbreaks have flared. The number of states that allowed religious exemptions was larger, until outbreaks occurred in several of them: https://gothamist.com/news/city-declares-public-health-emergency-as-measles-cases-spike-in-ultra-orthodox-neighborhoods Nit: it's not 43 states that allow exemption for "personal" belief, that's a smaller number - 12 or 15.

When on Earth did the decision to be vaccinated to help stop the spread of a contagious disease that has killed nearly 600,000 Americans become "subjective" and "personal"? Back in the days when Dinosaurs roamed the earth and we walked through the snow to school Uphill both ways, there had been a Rubella epidemic. Rubella is a wuss of a virus - it kills no one - but it causes miscarriages and birth defects in early pregnancy. Something like 250 out of 100,000 pregnancies were impacted. We didn't cavil about having to get vaccinated for a non-fatal disease with a low morbidity rate for reasons that weren't likely to impact our 8 year old butts personally, we lined up and rolled up our sleeves in the name of societal benefit, to prevent another baby-killing epidemic. It was a new vaccine, too. When did that idea, of a Civic Duty to act together for the social good, disappear? The reason epidemiologists talk about vaccinations as a tool to achieve population immunity is because that's one of the key points of vaccination. It's like winning tug-of-war or blacking out the countryside; it just doesn't work effectively if some of the people on your rope team decide that it's a subjective and personal decision not to pull or if some of the houses decide that there are perfectly reasonable reasons not to put up the blackout curtains. There have been a number of outbreaks in skilled nursing facilities and care homes where the residents were 90% vaccinated, but the staff only ~50%. The staff brought the infection in with them and objectively and factually infected the residents they cared for and other staff members (including some who were vaccinated). People died who didn't need to. I hope I'm civil, but I can't see vaccination as a "highly subjective" issue that impacts only the person making the decision, especially when someone makes a point that he's gonna go around and live his life and not take actions that could protect vulnerable people.

I mean, it's in the thread title, it's in the OP, it's in the linked tweet? If people are blowing by all those keys, I don't see where a mere heading would stop them.

The infectious agent mutating will impact the effectiveness of both natural immunity and of vaccination, if the lock mutates and no longer fits the key, as you say. But the duration of immunity, immune memory if you would, is another variable. Immunity to some diseases is lifelong - measles and smallpox are examples. Immunity to other diseases diminishes over time - the recommendation to get a tetanus booster every 10 years is an example of that, pertussis would be another. To use your analogy, the lock is the same but the key has worn down. It's not the decision to not be vaccinated which is contentious here. It's the statement that he's not going to follow the protocols, he'll either accept to be fined to the point where he's playing for free or retire. Retiring isn't a problem either (though I'd hate to see him go), but it's a leadership problem for a veteran to publicly declare he will flout the protocols.

It's not even just that there's no evidence they skipped the trials as your link points out. It's that results from preclinical tests in animals (we called them reg tox, or regulatory toxicology studies) are an expected precursor to an FDA-approved clinical trial. No ***** Way would the FDA approve a clinical trial without reg tox data in hand. Also, as was pointed out by Pennstate10, the results from the studies were published and are readily available.

Ah, OK. Fair. The bottom line is that we know adaptive immune response occurs, but we don't know how long the immunity lasts yet.

I don't see the problem calling "extremely rare complications" "side effects". Technically to the FDA/CDC theyre "reactions" or "adverse events", but everyone understands what "side effects" means. It's a valid point that people do tend to remember and focus on the risks they've heard about most recently, and not ask "ok, well, what are the known risks and frequency of them with the disease?" Consensus in which area? Sorry, as a response to my post, this is ambiguous to me.

It's a good question. You would think it's fair that someone who had a natural infection should be counted as immune and treated as vaccinated. Here's the problem: It's been found in several studies that the antibodies from mild natural infection seem to disappear in about 3 months (Spain, Italy). So far, the antibody response from the vaccine seems to be a bit stronger and more lasting - 6 months and counting. It's not a surprise - the virus naturally evades and dampens immune response as a survival tool, the vaccine shows your immune system a piece of viral protein and says "go at it!" That would sound like maybe the immunity from natural infection wears off, so shouldn't be considered immune? Well, not so fast. Antibodies are only one part of the adaptive immune response, and there are some studies indicating that T-cell response may be more important. Both natural infection and the vaccine promote a good T-cell response. Can't we just check people who have been infected and recovered for T-cell response? The problem is that T-cell response is lengthy and expensive to measure. Myself, I encourage people who have tested positive for covid-19 to be vaccinated, as an immunity booster. But I can also see the logic in counting people who have had a positive Covid-19 PCR test as immune, equivalent to being vaccinated, whether or not they still have antibodies.

I mean, that's "up to" the NFL and NFLPA to work out. It's not just the NFL dictating this stuff, the union that represents the players has had a hand in it, and to my understanding, has been pushing to maintain measures intended to protect players from infection. I'm sure the NFL wants to run a full schedule of games with no re-scheduling so they want players to be vaccinated to maintain the highest availability. The NFLPA wants vaccination to be a choice, so "vaxxed" vs "not vaxxed + protocols" was worked out. If that actually doesn't represent the beliefs of a majority of their membership, it's really "up to" the players to straighten that out.