Jump to content

Dahobbs

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    17874
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Dahobbs

  1. 3 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

    This is all conjectured nonsense.  

    As they are already compromised - are they more susceptible to COVID that the flu?  Or the common cold?  

    What were they doing before the vax?

    What have they done their entire lives during flu seasons?

    Or summer and winter colds?

    Do we have any actual data on their mortality rates by region pre and post vax as a % of the total population?

    Do we have data on their behavioral changes pre and post COVID?

    You are just taking the miniscule subset of a few thousand people spread across thousands of miles and using it as a justification to force compliance of hundreds of millions of people.

     

    What? I'm referring to other diseases we require vaccination for. We do that in part to protect those that cannot get vaccinate. The goal is to prevent those diseases from actively circulating. Covid-19 is a good candidate for being treated the same way:

    • The vaccines are highly effective. This is not conjecture.
    • The vaccines are readily available. This is not conjecture.
    • The vaccines have extremely low occurrences of serious side effects. This is not conjecture, but rather supported by all available data. There is some outside possibility that the vaccines could be associated with long term side effects that we just haven't seen yet. It may be reasonable to hold off on mandates until a bit more long term data is available. 
    • Covid-19 is a serious disease that has taken large death and economic toll on society. This is not conjecture.

    We can't effectively vaccinate against the flu or the various viruses that cause the common cold in a way that would prevent their circulation. Either the vaccines are not effective enough (the flu) or their are simply too many viruses (the cold). Further, these diseases are less serious than covid-19, so eliminating them is less important. 

    For some reason, you think the people who cannot get vaccinated are limited to "bubble boy" like individuals. That is not the case. That is a subset of the people that cannot get vaccines, not the entirety of the population. 

    Again, are you opposed to mandatory vaccinations for the measles? If not, why treat Covid-19 differently? Frankly, since you've said you'd get vaccinated should it be required to fly, that sounds like a pretty good data point in requiring vaccinations for those traveling on airplanes. 

  2. 6 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

    It's almost as if these people have had this condition their entire lives and we can isolate and focus attention directly to them - as they are compromised, how may other variants and illnesses are we ignoring?  Not comparing this to the flu, but what about that?  For the compromised, it can be a death sentence.  

    We protect them from a lot of diseases by requiring vaccinations and aiming for a high enough percentage of the population to be immune so as to prevent the disease from actively circulating in the community. Covid-19 is severe enough, spreads easily enough, and has readily available, highly effective vaccines. It is a perfect candidate for this type of treatment. 

    • Like 1
  3. 48 minutes ago, Herbie Hancock said:

    Jesus fuck. I’m turning off notifications from this thread after I say this:

    If you have appetite issues, the absolute last fucking thing you need to do is drink a protein shake let alone three. The digestion of isolate protein is slow, when combined with dairy it is incredibly slow. So you will actually feel satiety much longer from the shake as opposed to eating whole food, thus contributing even further to your alleged problem. You fucks are a salesman’s wet dream. YOU. DON’T. NEED. PROTEIN. SHAKES. IF. YOU. AREN’T. EATING. FOOD. FOR FUCK SAKE!

    You don’t have to listen to me. But for the love of all holy fuck go find ANY writings or podcasts by the likes of Dr. Layne Norton, Dr. Mike Israetel, Dr. Spencer Nadolsky, Stan Efferding, Hany Rambod, Chad Nicholls, Dr. Brad Schoenfeld, or Ben Carpenter.

    You're an angry elf. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Haha 1
  4. 33 minutes ago, hookemATL said:

    That’s a good call. I really miss whole milk, but nobody in the household will touch it. Granted once my newest daughter turns 1 she will transition to whole milk, so that will give me an excuse to buy it more often anyway. 

    Our household only buys whole milk. 2% tastes like water. 

  5. 3 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

    No vax are mandatory.  But to clarify - This one, for the reasons given over and over and over.  You have stated that you want mandatory vax for tens upon tens of millions of otherwise healthy people for the sole reason of protecting a few thousand easily identifiable people that have adverse reactions to vaccines in general.

    This.  Is.  Fucking.  Stupid.

    That isn't the sole reason. The vaccinated people will be protected too, which is good for all of us. 

    Yes, other vaccines are mandatory if one wishes to participate in particular aspects of public life. That's all I mean when I say mandatory. Again, are you opposed to those vaccines requirements for schools? 

    It is pretty clear to me at this point that you're just a crazy anti vaxxer but know you can't admit that on this forum. 

  6. 15 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

    As we talk about the new strain.  

    Side effects?  You mean on the fastest vaccination ever created in the history of modern medicine?  Sure thing sparky.  Considering I've had the virus and fall into the mortality rate of .0006, I think I'll take my chances.....BTW, "other" causes in my demographic are .004.  Where's my vaccination for those.  For the love of God, I have a statistical probability of dying from the the newest strain of "other" that is more than 85% higher!  EIGHTY FIVE percent.  

    This isn't a coherent thought.

    That said, yes, there are mutations with the Covid-19 virus. But the vaccines are still effective. The flu is somewhat unique in its ability to not only mutate, but to mutate in a way that voids prior resistance. 

  7. 11 minutes ago, Newdoc said:

    When you talk about wholesale restrictions on travel and the economy and freedom to gather, where do you draw the line? Foremost, I 100% agree that those who can take the vaccine have a responsibility to the rest of their community to take it.   But, at 0.1% who couldn't get the vaccine eventually, how many would actually get sick with serious sequelae or death? Certainly a lot less than 0.1%.

    When we start to get a small fraction of the population at risk then we start talking about what else we do in this country that eventually kills our fellow humans indirectly or even directly. Early on, Covid got its own special relative risk bubble and it should have due to the high risk to a population that was naive to it and didn't have acquired immunity but we have lost sight of relative and acceptable risks. We did it with AIDS in the late 80's and 90's. Funding, public awareness and public health shifts away from big ticket items, like gun safety, travel risks, smoking around kids. If we truly care so much about risks to the general public., we should limit all cars to 75 mph, immediately ban smoking and alcohol.  Ignorant public opinion should not drive the public health pendulum. And neither should politicians who don't know jack squat about health care. 

    My points have a strawman taste to them, but it's been a very long time since someone in political or public health leadership has made rationale decisions based on reasonably hard data. We are working off worst case scenarios with 6 month old immunity data. See Oregon's recent shut down. How many schools are still virtual?  Why are fully vaccinated people still wearing mask literally everywhere?  

    I have no idea what point your making. I haven't argued for more lock downs or for shutting down schools. I also haven't argued that the vaccinated still need to wear masks. And I haven't argued that we should require masks long term. Those points aren't just a taste of straw, that's all they are. What I've said is that we should make some minimum effort to require vaccinations for participation in certain public activities. Cheesenuts and Russian Grandma have some disagreement with that, but cannot actually express what it is or why. We require vaccinations for other diseases. We should require vaccinations for Covid-19. I don't see the point in arguing otherwise. How best to implement that requirement is a different question and I think one worthy of discussion. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
  8. 5 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

    Then why not start with the flu.  MANDATORY.  100% as it actually kills kids.  Zero tolerance.  Lead with that.  And then every other virus shortly after.  Also mandatory.  You know, for the sake of the kids....

    The flu vaccine isn't effective enough and the flu mutates quickly enough that even 100% vaccination rates aren't going to prevent the illness. So, we could do that. I don't think it is necessarily a terrible idea, but it probably isn't an efficient use of resources. 

    But, just because we don't require vaccination for the flu, which I think you admit is less severe than Covid, doesn't mean we shouldn't require vaccination for Covid. The vaccines are highly effective. The serious side effects are near non-existent. The virus doesn't yet show the same genetic flexibility that the flu has. So, again, why not require vaccination? We do for other diseases, many less serious than Covid-19.  You've still refused to answer my question: do you oppose those vaccines? 

  9. 8 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

    Isn't that viewing the US in a bit of a vacuum?  As we all know, the rest of the world is much further behind in vaccinations and it will probably be that way for a long while.  They will also have large portions that do not get the vaccine.  If these mutations are going to continue to happen, I would imagine it will continue to happen overseas whether we reach 100% here or not.

     

    Isn't that we should do nothing because maybe doing something will not be 100% effective? Is that a reasonable approach to life? Do treat other public health measures that way? Of course not. But, sure, let's go all prisoner's dilemma in this bitch even though it is indisputable that getting everyone vaccinated is the best approach, both for society and for us individually.  

  10. 11 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

    Are they mandatory?  Do we contact trace for them?  Shut down schools?  All for a virus that kills kids.  Corona, not so much.  So he's asking why the draconian measures for one, but not the other?

    Are you opposed to mandatory vaccinations for:

    • Diphtheria/Tetanus/Pertussis
    • Polio 
    • Measles, Mumps, and Rubella
    • Hepatitis B
    • Varicella 
    • Meningococcal 
    • Hepatitis A

    If not, why is Covid any different? What is inappropriate about instituting a public health measure that will indisputably benefit all of us? 

    https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/school/school-requirements.aspx

    • Hook 'Em 1
  11. 1 hour ago, The Dog said:

    The problem is this has been a disease that primarily has affected the old and infirm, but it always could make younger and healthier people very sick. Now that the restrictions are easing or being completely removed, the 20-somethings  are ready to rumble and this is a demographic that just doesn't see the doctor unless they are sick. And even then they go to their local "doc in a box" at CVS or Walgreens. 

    They don't get seasonal flu vaccines so they certainly aren't getting this shot unless prodded. 

    It's no accident the current "hot spots" are college campuses. 

     

    Correct, that is the problem. Apparently @Cheeseweasel and @BabaYaga thinking reporting on that problem is wrong for some reason. 

    8 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

    And those 30% will have made a poor decision that affects them (or other people who have made a similar poor decision).

    I don't have a lot of sympathy.  But 99.99% will have the the option make a decision.

    Actually, that 30% have made a decision that will greatly increase the chance the .1% that cannot get the vaccine will get sick and/or die. And that 30% have a made a decision that increases the likelihood that Covid stays with us long term and mutates in some way to decrease the effectiveness of vaccines, thus putting the rest of the of us at risk. In light of that possibility, some sort of vaccination requirement is reasonable in order to protect society as a whole. This really shouldn't be debatable.  

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 3
  12. 18 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

    So glad they took the time to tell us this important fact.

    So you agree it is a fact? I really don't understand the problem. The information is true. The article provides context for the current stage of the pandemic and explains why it is still important that young people get vaccinated. Given that a lot of people don't believe vaccinations are important and don't believe young people can get seriously sick, isn't it important to get correct information out there? Maybe you know this information. Others don't, with some are being actively fed disinformation. Why does the truth make you uncomfortable? 

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 1
  13. 1 minute ago, Cheeseweasel said:

    BODIES IN TREES!!!!!!!!

    It's very little science,  very much conjecture, and a whole lot of statistical manipulation / doom porn headline

    You're reading into that headline your fears. The article isn't spouting doom talk. It is saying the simple reality: young people can get sick too and are become a greater part of the mix. It's also weird to say its very little science, the important scientific information is quotes from experts in the article. The overall message is a sound one: everyone that can should get vaccinated, include younger adults. I find it odd that you have such an intense emotional reaction to this mundane bit of information. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  14. 46 minutes ago, Js1 said:

    The lens they used was super weird, because it makes Jimmy and Rosalynn look like dolls. Haha. 

    Should have had Bill in there and we'd have the last 3 Democrats to win Georgia. 

    Yeah... why would you take that picture? Reaching out to the little people and dollhouse enthusiast communities? 

    • Haha 1
  15. On 5/1/2021 at 1:27 PM, Herbie Hancock said:

    What does your diet look like? You should get your protein from whole food sources. Get your diet right first then revisit the supplement conversation, otherwise you’re spinning your wheels and wasting your money. When you absolutely can not eat any more, that’s where protein shakes come in. Remember it’s called a supplement, not a replacement. About the only people that should be drinking protein shakes are athletes and bodybuilders.

    I mostly agree with this. You should definitely try and get as much of your protein as possible from normal food sources. That said, if you're trying to stay lean while also building muscle, supplementation is very helpful. It is difficult to get enough protein (.8 grams per lb of bodyweight to avoid muscle loss if you're staying neutral or in a slight caloric deficit) while also staying near calorie neutral unless you're ok eating just plain chicken breast all the time.  High quality whey protein provides a calorie efficient source of protein so that you can expand the rest of your diet while still getting sufficient protein. This isn't as important if you still have excess body fat, but once you're leaner (like 14% or less body fat), supplementation makes life a lot easier. I don't think you need to be an athlete or a serious bodybuilder to benefit. 

  16. 21 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

    Those need to be identified and isolated.  Numbers I have seen are in the low thousands (less than 5K).  To mandate hundreds of millions of otherwise healthy people must comply to protect and very clear and identifiable sub-set is absurd.  

    Vaccines are not new, so to act like identifying this sub-set is difficult seems counter intuitive as they would know their own conditions.  

    I think your numbers are very low. But, ignoring that, your solution is that instead of requiring everyone get a near risk free vaccine that will benefit everyone, instead we should force a small segment of the population to essentially remain imprisoned? Have the few bear all the cost for the benefit of everyone else? Do you feel the same about other vaccines that we require? If not, why not? 

  17. 1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

    Who cannot get the vaccine?  Find them.  Work to help them?  We talking geographical restrictions?  Medical complications?  Cost?  You are talking about a statistically minute sector of people.  To mandate that hundreds of millions HAVE to take it is insane when you look at the mortality rates and statistical implications of certain age demographics.  

    I was specifically referring to medical reasons. Every vaccine that I'm aware of has a segment of the population that cannot take it. Part of the reason we require vaccinations for other ailments is to protect those people. Again, why should Covid be treated differently than either measles or chickenpox in that regard? Or is it your opinion that requiring vaccinations for those ailments is wrong too? 

    Note: my comparison to measles and chickenpox is not meant to suggest that we should require vaccination in the same way or for the same activities (i.e., school). It is merely a reference to the broader principle of requiring vaccination in association with certain activities. 

  18. Just now, BabaYaga said:

    For children, completely and utterly unnecessary.  They are statistically safer from COVID that taking over the counter pain meds.  For the vulnerable.  Protect and target the vulnerable.  To mandate the everyone MUST do this or do that to carry on with their lives is akin to E.Germany stops to "show your papers".

    This virus kills the fat and the old.  So protect the fat and the old.  For most everyone else, mandates like this are insane.  

    Your assumptions are unsupported. First, the virus kills more than the fat and old. For instance, it kills the relatively healthy middle age adult at a much higher rate than the flu. Second, the cost of the virus is not limited only to the death toll. And your proposal of "protect and target the vulnerable" isn't a proposal at all. The question is how to do that. In particular, how do you protect those people that cannot get a vaccine? Our answer for other diseases has usually been to have a high level of vaccination in the population so that those individuals aren't likely to be exposed to it. That's why we require vaccinations for many of those childhood ailments. So, my question to you, why should covid be different? Its cost is surely greater than or equal to things like chickenpox and measles. So why treat it differently? 

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 1
  19. 7 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

    Neither do you apparently with this idea that I'm somehow against all those laws mentioned.  The point you missed was utilizing the logic that "if it saves just one life (net grater than zero)" as the driver for enacting it can have massive, negative implications and unintended side effects that far outweigh the initial intentions of the original bill.  

     

     

    I honestly can't tell what thought you're trying to convey in the bolded portion. I don't think I've ever said anything about "if it saves just one life" as a justification for a law. That standard is impossible and impractical. 

    At any rate, I never assumed you were against all those laws. Frankly, I figured you would be in favor of a number of them. My only question is why a law requiring covid vaccination for participation in certain (undetermined at this point) activities would be objectionable. What makes it different from those laws that you do approve of? This is a sincere question; I want to know what properties of a covid vaccination requirement (of any scope) would make it objectionable to you. 

×
×
  • Create New...