Hapless Bills Fan

It's a fair point that there are side effects to the vaccines. But rational, logical risk assessment involves asking questions like: -are there side effects to the disease, including mild or asymptomatic cases of the disease? -The answer is "yes, including in people of Cole Beasley's age group" -Those side effects include blood clotting, myocarditis, and pulmonary effects -what is the frequency of the side effects of the disease, relative to the side effects of the vaccine? -Myocarditis was detected in college athletes diagnosed with covid-19 at 0.3%, or 300 per 100,000 -Myocarditis or pericarditis found in 5 of 789 pro athletes (multiple leagues) + for covid last season (incl. Sweeney). 634 per 100,000 (source: JAMA Cardiology, March issue) -Myocarditis or pericarditis post-vaccination in 475 people under 30. At least 3.4 million people in that age group vaccinated (CDC covid vaccine data). That's an upper bound of 14 out of 100,000 Rational, logical risk assessment: At least 45x higher risk from covid-19 disease than from covid-19 vaccine. -Similar assessment for blood clots - from Oxford, UK In 500,000 COVID-19 patients, CVT (cerebral venous thrombosis) occurred in 3.9 out of 100,000 patients In 480,000 people receiving a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine (Pfizer or Moderna), CVT occurred in 40 out of 100,000 patients, many under 30 y.o. Rational, logical risk assessment: At least 10x higher risk of blood clotting from covid-19 disease than from covid-19 vaccine, including in <30

Fair point well made about CTE. I responded to it as well, so I think it will stay along with the responses, but germaine Let's lay off the implications that a player we disagree with has CTE, Folks.

If you wish to discuss sheep, numerous cooperative extension programs have groups for this purpose, as well as many breed specific forums and Facebook groups. If you are using the term "sheep" as a perjorative for people whose societal/political views disagree with yours, societal and political discussion may take place in the PPP group as well as many other internet sites. Thank you. Can you give me some Lotto numbers? JK

I've done plenty of research. I know a lot about the vaccines. None of that is true. All 3 vaccines are approved by the FDA. They're approved under "emergency use" after full pre-clinical animal testing, full clinical trials including Phase III trials in more than 30000 volunteers, and after review of a regulatory submission that lacked the duration and manufacturing batch consistency data that a full BLA contains.

More willing to "draft" on other people who get vaccinated, and more entitled - take the protection afforded by a largely vaccinated population for granted, don't see the effects of the diseases people are immunized for, so those aren't real to them. Less able to realistically and rigorously assess risk I'm just saying I don't think Cole is dumb. I think he's probably very intelligent. I think his risk assessment is off kilter and he's mistaken about some things (my opinion) but that doesn't make him dumb.

Except that it's not their choice, if their kids go to daycare or most schools, unless they apply for religious or medical exemption. https://www.cdc.gov/phlp/publications/topic/vaccinations.html

It's beyond the scope, but I won't say "google". https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html#:~:text=mRNA vaccines have been studied,into an mRNA vaccine. mRNA Vaccines Are New, But Not Unknown Researchers have been studying and working with mRNA vaccines for decades. Interest has grown in these vaccines because they can be developed in a laboratory using readily available materials. This means the process can be standardized and scaled up, making vaccine development faster than traditional methods of making vaccines. mRNA vaccines have been studied before for flu, Zika, rabies, and cytomegalovirus (CMV). As soon as the necessary information about the virus that causes COVID-19 was available, scientists began designing the mRNA instructions for cells to build the unique spike protein into an mRNA vaccine. Future mRNA vaccine technology may allow for one vaccine to provide protection for multiple diseases, thus decreasing the number of shots needed for protection against common vaccine-preventable diseases. Beyond vaccines, cancer research has used mRNA to trigger the immune system to target specific cancer cells. https://biontech.de/science/pipeline 8 or 9 drug candidates in clinical trials for various cancers.

If he's a close contact of someone who tests positive, or he himself tests positive, it's not his choice.

That'll do. (And yes, mRNA vaccines have been used in other situations)

EUA for these vaccines: Full preclinical safety studies. Full clinical trial data - 3 phases of clinical trials including a 30,000 or 45,000 person phase III trial. Detailed protocols to be followed in the trials, and specific data collected, piles of reports in specific formats to make sure everything was there easy to find. Identity, characterization, stability, and impurity tests for the vaccine developed and validated to prove they're repeatable and do what they say they do. All the companies involved got it done by 1) not fiddling much with the vaccine or its formulation to try to make good great 2) throwing tons of manpower at the problem. What wasn't there for the EUA was duration of clinical followup data (usually 6 months), duration of stability studies (usually 6 months to 2 years - a non issue when the vaccine is used within a short time of manufacture), and some manufacturing consistency data. Very few drug candidates have trouble with the manufacturing consistency data, those issues get sorted much earlier. If the objection to the vaccine is it's "only approved for emergency use", then it's relevant to have some understanding of just how close to a full approval package it was. If the objection is "I question the efficacy and honesty of the FDA" then "it's only approved for emergency use" is a Stalking Horse - a seemingly reasonable point that's really cover for a deeper, more conspiracy-minded argument. You know this is a football forum, and issues will be discussed in TSW in the tight context of football relevance. Alzheimer's drug approval and Covid origin debates may be discussed elsewhere, along with general discussion of the efficacy and honesty of our FDA.

That's probably not true. The reason is that most viruses have strategies to evade and suppress the immune system, and as we learn more about SARS-CoV2 we learn that it seems trickier than most in this regard. The vaccine, on the other hand, just shows your immune system the spike protein and says "sic 'em". Are you talking of the vaccine, or of the SARs-Cov2 virus here? There's "recency bias". People have been hearing a lot about the vaccine lately, and forget that: 1) This virus is new, too 2) We have no idea of what potential long term damage a natural viral infection with this virus may cause More data accumulates regularly about long-term side effects from asymptomatic and mild viral infections. It's not to say there aren't vaccine side effects, there are. Overall, historically, the number and scope of long term effects from natural virus infections are much larger - and new effects from viral diseases that have been known for decades, like measles, are learnt on a regular basis. I learnt upthread that it's an ineffective vaccine because it's only 80 or 85% effective <sarcasm>. 🙄 That means 15 or 20% of those who get vaccinated still can get infected. That means unvaccinated can, in fact, impact those who get the vaccine. Less often, but still. And no, not every adult can protect themselves by getting vaccinated. Some medical conditions and treatments make it inadviseable. Rare, but still.

Do tell. What is it? What was involved in the EUA for these vaccines and how that differs from a BLA? I know pretty exactly, as it happens, because that was my lane. I'm also pretty sure that the overwhelming majority of people who glibly trot that phrase out have no idea, but are just parroting something they heard on a talk show - without any details, of course, it just SOUNDS so alarming.

I think Beas has a substantial ranch property in Texas. When I'm not busy imputing the best motives and genuine beliefs and convictions to players, I did have this observation that Beasley was helmetless and not participating in team drills most of OTAs and we didn't hear about him being open and making catches for Josh when the defense was "winning the day". Then I had this sneaky little devil thought, "what if Bease really damaged himself playing on that broken leg last season and is struggling, and decided to kind of ride off in a Blaze of Glory as a Martyr to NFL/NFLPA Covid Policy instead of announcing that he was retiring because he could no longer play at the level he wanted?"

I don't know. I would expect the players to mirror society, wouldn't you? The NFLPA is supposed to have leadership elected by players and player representatives from each team, so it really ought to reflect the concerns of the membership. I wouldn't expect it to be the viewpoint of all the players, but I would expect a significant number of the players to be concerned - the Big Guys or others who are at higher risk, players who have at-risk relatives or who have otherwise been touched by this. Maybe I'm wrong and you're right and it's all "corporate speak", but JC Tretter made a big thing about it in their "no OTAs" bit and also last year, when the league was proposing to return and the players staged that "we want to play but..." campaign pushing the NFL for clarity in the protocols to be followed. We aren't gonna be discussing how Sars-Cov2 differs from common coronaviruses that have been circulating here. Elsewhere with that.

Do you think that's a realistic choice? First of all, the NFL has player minimum salaries. He can't play "For free". So what he means is, he's willing to be fined to the point of it taking his entire game check of $260,000 for repeatedly violating protocols. But is that realistic, on a team, to have a player who is regularly and repeatedly violating the rules on ANY topic? I can't think of a case where one team member (in the work teams I was involved with) was perceived as regularly violating rules that applied to anyone else, and it didn't have a horribly detrimental effect on morale and teamwork? Especially if he becomes a lightening rod for the disaffection of younger players It's a problem.

Judging from what he posted, his biggest issue seemed to be restrictions on visits from family members or travel to see family members (?), or restriction on his own social life outside of football. But, earlier I took his stated concern for vaccinated players who went out for dinner posing an infection risk to him, at face value. Now it seems he isn't worried about being infected, he just doesn't either want to follow the unvaccinated player protocols OR be vaccinated.

I'm more concerned by this: I believe Beane and McDermott officially have a Big-Ass Problem.

1) Yes, the vaccines are highly effective at preventing death or serious disease. They also significantly reduce the chances of any infection and decrease transmission 2) Players who are not dead and do not have serious disease can still be unavailable for multiple NFL games because they are infected and take a couple weeks to recover, or have their quality of play impacted (Garrett), or be sidelined for the season (Sweeney). 3) The NFL/clubs don't want players to be unavailable 4) NFLPA has taken the position that they don't want their members to be infected/impacted, therefore they wanted daily testing and protocols last year. 5) Unvaccinated players are basically in the same spot that they were in last year. Now, if the NFLPA members strongly conveyed to their leadership "we don't GAF if we catch covid, we'll take that risk, throw out the protocols and anyone who cares can get vaxxed", that would be different - Either that belief is not held by the majority of NFLPA members OR the majority have not properly conveyed it, OR the NFL clubs completely refused to accept it. "Stopping any chance at potential spread" is not at question.

The Pegulas shouldn't be making football decisions for the Bills. Bad precedent.

Then we agree there.

No. Don't jump into the pool if you aren't gonna take the trouble to get wet. Don't jump into a thread if you aren't going to take the trouble to understand the premise first.

I was confused too, but it's possible there's a reason external to us for that.

What would have to be true for this to be correct? 1) the vaccine would have to be completely effective, with no breakthrough infections, instead of perhaps 85% effective against Delta variant 2) all at risk people would have to be able to be vaccinated - some can not, for health reasons 3) the vaccine would have to "take" and be effective in all at risk people 4) even when players are not at risk and will eventually recover, they will not be available if they contract covid or (if unvaccinated) if they are a close contact The NFL and NFLPA protocols appear to be an attempt to recognize that 1-3 are not true - vaccinated players are still at (lower, but some) risk from unvaccinated players and staff; at-risk vaccinated players may unknown to them, have not had a proper immune response to the vaccine Therefore the NFL/NFLPA protocols do not say "we won, time to move on" Now. The NFLPA could argue that they don't GAF if they catch covid because they think it's not a particular risk to healthy young athletic studs. They could argue that players should be allowed to play unless they are actually symptomatic. That would hang a different set of players - at-risk players, who are obese or have diabetes, or who are in close contact with people at-risk - out to dry. But that's not what the NFLPA has argued or lobbied for, to date. Presumably they have some input from their membership. What means MTG?

No. I'm pointing out the faulty assumptions of your previous post. I suggest you refrain from imputing "advocating for forced vaccination" where it does not exist, going forward; it looks like an attempt at "stirring the pot" or trolling from here. Pointing out that consequences of not being vaccinated extend to other people is not the same thing.

This is not calling for "universal vaccination". It's pointing out, correctly, that the "personal choice" of a player not to be vaccinated impacts other players and their families/vulnerable people they come in contact with. Difference. Running to the vaccine clinic?