billsfan5121

I just want to be sure I understand this correctly. So someone on the left can make fun of what a man decides to put in his mouth and it’s simply a funny joke. Now, what if I make fun of what Pete Buttigieg puts in his mouth? Wouldn’t I be censored and cancelled (assuming I had a following)? Kind of a double standard, don’t you think?

You really do love making broad generalizations about the unvaccinated. How can you say the unvaccinated doesn’t care about the elderly, but in every post tell us that getting vaccinated prevents the spread and hospitalizations? Wouldn’t that imply that an elderly person with the vaccine is safe? I don’t understand the logic here. If I am 80 and get the vaccine, shouldn’t it be my expectation that it doesn’t matter what you do because my risk is diminished? According to the charts you love posting, I should be ok shouldn’t I? Now back to generalizing the unvaccinated as not giving a $@&t about the elderly. You really need to get off your high horse acting like getting the vaccine is some sort of noble decision to benefit all of humanity, because it’s not. You have picked this hill to die on while you likely make other decisions in your life that scream “I only care about myself.” Am I right? Does every choice you make have the benefit of everyone else above yourself? I doubt it. So I’d love to know how I don’t care about the elderly because I’m unvaccinated? Here’s the reality. You don’t know me or my family. What you don’t know is that I haven’t been to church in 18 months because of the pandemic. I haven’t been to any public events in 18 months. I’ve made many sacrifices because I’m not vaccinated because of my own personal choice. But someone unvaccinated and living responsibly doesn’t fit your narrative that we are out, spreading COVID to everyone. So keep generalizing that we are a detriment to society. Whats funny is I have heard numerous stories of the vaccinated that would suggest maybe they should evaluate their own view of “protecting” others. I have a coworker who came down with COVID symptoms but decided to go to a basketball game anyways because she was vaccinated. So even though she thought she had it, and we know she can spread it, she went anyways. So who is more in the wrong here? The vaccinated coworker or me who is unvaccinated and doesn’t go to public events despite feeling great? I’m guessing you’ll say both but I’d love to know what makes me such a problem to society.

But then he’ll question if your doctor is legit. That’s what’s funny. If two doctors have differing opinions of treatment (which happens - high blood pressure - medicate vs. diet/exercise), then what happens? You pick the one with your point of view. So ultimately, if you want to get vaxxed, what does it matter what the doctor says? And the other doctor I guess would be considered unqualified. It’s crazy to me that he, or anyone else, cannot fathom the idea that there’s some people out there who have genuine concerns about a vaccine. Suddenly, you’re antivax or an apologist. People are concerned and all I hear is “science.” But science has failed before and it’ll fail again. Scientists and researchers will find an answer to a problem and years later the original thought is obsolete. I’ve provided an example (of many I’m sure) where a treatment option was given, approved, deemed safe, and 15 years later (two weeks ago now) was recalled because it causes cancer. How is that ok?

How am I antivaccine when I have stated numerous times that I am vaccinated for everything required other than Covid, and my kids who are both elementary age are vaccinated? Can you read? I chose to have them vaccinated. I didn’t have to. They are homeschooled, yet they were vaccinated because I felt that they are proven safe. Being concerned with new medicine does not make one against it. I’m glad that millions of people feel safe with it. I am concerned with long term effects. The same long term effects that your “science” has failed to identify in the early stages for other medicine. But since my opinion differs from yours, again, that makes me the ignorant one. I cannot figure out why we live in a world where expression and inclusiveness is such a big topic that everyone is on board with……until it’s not their opinion. As a vaccine promoter, you do such a terrible job of having a rational discussion and trying to have a real conversation about the vaccine. I am losing count of how many times I’ve had to say I’m not antivax, yet there’s a few people who want to throw that label around ignorantly because they can’t read. You do more harm than good for the very product you try to promote. You sound like a child who reverts to name calling when someone doesn’t agree with you.

More assumptions. I’ve already stated I’m not antivax and I have all vaccines as do my children. But being forced to take something that might cause an issue down the road is not ok. Ive given my concerns, but since my concerns aren’t in line with how you think, you jump to this conclusion that I must be dumb. I’m probably a Trump following, right wing conspiracy theorist? I guess stereotyping is ok now?

Oldmanfan - “we shouldn’t make this political.” Hours later- this beauty

I did not say I was a scientist. I said I was asking you the researcher and then addressed myself as someone concerned about the vaccine. And I ask questions the way I do because I am genuinely concerned about long term effects of the vaccine, not because I am antivax. But because I’m genuinely concerned, I get called antivax or an idiot by people who claim to be professionals in the field. You will never have an open dialogue about something you feel so passionate about when you belittle the very people you claim to care about. So again, I am not a scientist. I am not a researcher. However, I am not antivax nor an idiot simply because I have real concerns. I am highly educated in a non-science field so I would be more than happy to have a real conversation. Quit dismissing people and listen to the concerns. It will work much better for you in the long run. This is just a message board but we are all people, no different than your own family and friends. Also, the pill to help quit smoking, Chantix, was approved (2006) and effects were not realized until last month, 15 years later, so it does happen.

Considering this message board is the only form of “social media” I use, your stereotype that I must be antivax and get my information from social media is false. Also, you say I asked childishly. You are right but I did that because I was quoting a childish reply. Is it not childish to say “too many idiots” because their opinion differs? Or is that ok because its coming from your side of a debate? I have been vaccinated for everything that’s required since birth, and so have my children. I apologize that I live a healthy lifestyle and follow all protocols that have been passed down since day one, so either those protocols are keeping me and the public safe, or you need to admit they are pointless. You can choose. By the way, you’re promoting the vaccine on social media in the form of a discussion board. I guess because it’s your opinion that makes it ok if I got my info from social media? You should also quit saying to trust science when science changes through research. Because science say “_____” today does not mean that holds true for eternity. I assume you know that though and are simply choosing to ignore that little bit of truth. Also while you’re on your high horse caring about all of society and what prevents hospitalization, I assume you’re a big advocate for diet and exercise, seeing how heart disease is the number one killer in the US. I’m well aware heart disease isn’t contagious, but you’re telling me I should get the vaccine to lower the chances of hospitalization. Do you care about the other choices I make in life? Another issue I have is the claim that the unvaccinated are the ones spreading it. Let me ask this. If breakthrough infections happen, we can say with certainty that vaccinated people can still get COVID. But we will hear that it’s far less. How can we know that? If it most often keeps you asymptomatic, how do we know how many people get breakthrough infections? It’s not as if you randomly decide to get tested for the fun of it. So if there’s only reports of __ number of people, wouldn’t it stand to reason that it’s much higher? So the vaccinated are spreading it as well. Also, if you’re vaccinated, why do you care so much what someone else does? Do you worry about people who may or may not have their polio vaccine? Measles? My guess is no. But why not? Now you might say that some people cannot get vaccinated because of a condition. Why does this condition matter more than others? Do you only eat peanuts in your house out of fear that someone near you might be highly allergic? You are picking the vaccine to make a stand when there are likely other areas of your life that would suggest you don’t always care how your decisions effect other people. Also in your rebuttal, you simply tried to turn it on me but you never answered. Can we be 100% certain the vaccine will not cause problems down the road? Lastly, too many people out there go out to dinner and bars and consume alcohol, then drive home putting other people at risk. I believe we should ban alcohol because it is a risk to you and others around you. Would that be ok?

Here’s where I have a problem. Someone is an idiot if they are concerned about a new vaccine? Ive followed this thread for a while now and I see you are in a research field and have no problems telling us all how qualified you are to make assertions about the vaccine. So I am coming to you, who is a qualified researcher in the science field as someone who is concerned with the vaccine. All I ask is you answer honestly and don’t attack. I’m willing to listen. So with that said, can you answer 2 simple questions. 1) with your acquired knowledge and years of research, can you say with 100% certainty that we can know without a shadow of a doubt that this vaccine WILL NOT cause other medical problems 10 years from now, 15 years from now, etc.? 2) if you can answer yes to that claim, why would it be different this time vs others when drugs were deemed safe and were approved for use by our very own government, only to be found to cause other health problems after more research and years of being in use?

So I can voluntarily throw my life away with poor eating habits and smoking with no exercise and take up a room in the hospital, but I cannot be concerned with a vaccine that was rushed to market? Got it

So are the smokers and obese. Where’s the outcry or government mandates?

How is it ridiculous? It’s still spreading.

Funny how none of the three have done anything.

Here’s the problem. For many of us, we don’t get to weigh the benefit vs the risk for ourselves. Instead, we are being forced to take something, even if we counted the cost. And when people are hesitant, it’s not so much is it safe today. We all know people who have been vaccinated and are still here and seemingly healthy. We believe that there’s a chance that there could be future repercussions because say what you want about science, it CANNOT accurately predict future outcomes. It can provide info to make a guess, but it’s not guaranteed. What is deemed safe today can be found to be dangerous later. There are examples of that and the FDA approving things that turned out to be dangerous. So vaccine approvals don’t mean much to some people.

What I want to know is if California is similar to Virginia in that middle school is 6th to 8th grade, meaning students range from 11 years old to 13 years old. Since 12 and up is eligible, that means 2/3s will be required while 1/3 won’t. If COVID is that dangerous for children, why isn’t K - 6th grade mandatory at home learning so they arent mixed with the vaccinated? The rules people are making are simply arbitrary and have changed throughout this whole pandemic. Then we hear that they change because more is learned as we go, but then we hear trust the science, which they just admitted that it changed. I’m sick of hearing trust the science when science is constantly changing. I don’t post in this section often but I’m still waiting for anyone to comment how Chantix - made by Phizer - was recalled after they figured out after 15 years it causes cancer. However, it was deemed safe and FDA approved in May 2006. Just because they feel something is safe today does not mean we won’t learn later that there’s a problem.

Tim Taylor Doug Heffernan Al Bundy

Hey look, stereotyping someone because they are of a certain race or nationality is so wrong and cannot be tolerated. Same people. If you are a conservative, you’re just an uneducated Trump follower. Also, systematic racism is real and is holding people down. Same people. Let’s keep voting in the same party that has controlled that “system” for decades. Here’s another that I just heard last weekend - I don’t understand why anyone wouldn’t take the vaccine to prevent a disease that might damage your lungs and put you on a ventilator. Same person - told me this after coming back inside from a smoke break. That last one was not a joke. It literally happened. Shook my head and walked away.

So what I don’t understand about the science issue is science is always changing, so how can we trust what we know today to be safe down the road? Case and point- In May 2006, the FDA approved Chantix as a safe drug to help adults quit smoking. It was approved. It was safe. It was effective. Fast forward 15 years and guess what, Phizer had to recall it less than two weeks ago because NOW they realize it causes cancer. THIS is what people are worried about with the vaccine. Not Biden. Not Trump. Not Fauci. I get MRNA has been studied for years. Has it ever been injected in humans safely prior to Covid? I don’t believe it has.

I have a dumb question. So I see this and also heard yesterday that there is no reliable way of testing antibodies to see if someone who had a previous infection had the antibodies, resulting in immunity. If that were the case, how do you test the antibodies of vaccinated people to know they have antibodies for immunity?

How convenient. As he nears retirement (inevitable), he thinks defenses get flagged too much. I bet he’d love for the league to go back to the old style of play to ensure his records are never touched.

Didn’t read the article but it seems it mentions a first place schedule? If so, who cares that it’s first place as that’s by title only. Would anyone really rather play dallas than Washington, Baltimore vs Pittsburgh for us? Sure, we get the chiefs but the other two “first place games” are easier than had we had the second place schedule. So add that to the fact that Miami and NE play us twice vs us playing them, plus they get Cleveland and Baltimore vs Steelers, and I’d say we are in much better shape schedule wise.

When I was younger, I’d go to the bar at 12:30 and stay till midnight. Now, with wife and kids, I watch Bills games and barely get to watch much else. Not that I’m not allowed, but I don’t want to miss out on time with wife and kids for a game that has no real impact on my life.

If next years second round will have more talent than this years second, why in the world would we trade a first (which if the 2nd round is stacked, wouldn’t the 1st be even better) next year to draft in a “light” second round this year? You basically are saying you want to move up in an already weak class.

I can see this. And the narrative is Belichick intentionally waited for the 2021 class to get his guy (sort of like how we passed on 2017 for 2018) instead of settling for someone in 2020 draft.

The best part about this is we finally shouldn’t care if we have the best RB. For years it’s like we wanted the best. Sure, it would be a nice supplement to our passing game now, but as last year proved, we don’t really even need it to be good.