CR: COVID-19 --Political Talk

[TwiceHorn 32079]

On 10/5/2021 at 2:35 PM, Mrs Whiggins said:

She is a registered nurse and has (or had) a teaching position at Ohio State.

Probably worth pointing out that many RNs lack a four-year degree.  And, I think a lot of nurses' career paths/educations (getting their nursing qualifications piecemeal by programs that get them the next-higher qualification, rather than a continuous degree plan) are such that they miss out on a lot of the standard "liberal arts" core courses that even most STEM majors get.  Meaning, they may have the science and technical training to do their jobs, well in most cases, but may lack a "well-rounded" education.

[aggie08 21797]

3 minutes ago, Satoshi said:

Nope. They work about as well as getting infected. 
 

No. You would only need to provide record of positive PCR test or a one time positive nucleocapsid antibody test. You’re still provided protection even after antibodies are gone. Same with vaccines.
 

Do you think we should be tracking double vaxxed people’s antibodies?
 

The implications are thus, a portion of the population is being excluded and some forced out of work for no reason. They are similar to double Pfizer vaxxed, almost certainly superior to J&J vaxxed. That doesn’t make any sense to me. It will to y’all. Whatever. 

Are we not already tracking vaccinated people's antibodies? Isn't that the main factor driving booster decisions?

Dude, you know as well as I do that, if testing were implemented as a possible vaccine exemption, most of those people wouldn't head to their closest CVS if the results weren't what they hoped. They'd just pivot to a new excuse. And you'd probably start peddling the next talking point to carry their water. Same as it ever was. But I'm all for trying.

[Anastasis 23718]

9 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Are we not already tracking vaccinated people's antibodies? Isn't that the main factor driving booster decisions?

LOL. 

If by "we" you mean the upper and middle class college educated societal outliers that post on this board and participate in research trials with serial tracking of antibodies so that we can make jokes about the "necessary immunities" being tree-fiddy, than yes.  Main factor driving boosting decisions are individual's antibody levels. 

Otherwise no, antibody testing is not routine in clinical practice to drive booster decisions. Nobody really has a firm idea how to interpret the quantitative lab results or where the thresholds of protection are, or what other unmeasured correlates of protection may be more important. 

 

9 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Dude, you know as well as I do that, if testing were implemented as a possible vaccine exemption, most of those people wouldn't head to their closest CVS if the results weren't what they hoped. They'd just pivot to a new excuse. And you'd probably start peddling the next talking point to carry their water. Same as it ever was. But I'm all for trying.

Then make them pivot to something else and let the people that are willing to provide the necessary laboratory results for an exemption get an exemption. 

 

Some of y'all seem more determined to punish people you have targeted than in crafting a sound evidence-based policy that creates safe work environments. 

Edited October 20, 2021 by Anastasis

[aggie08 21797]

10 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

LOL. 

If by "we" you mean the upper and middle class college educated societal outliers that post on this board and participate in research trials with serial tracking of antibodies so that we can make jokes about the "necessary immunities" being tree-fiddy, than yes.  Main factor driving boosting decisions are individual's antibody levels. 

Otherwise no, antibody testing is not routine in clinical practice to drive booster decisions.

 

Then make them pivot to something else and let the people that are willing to provide the necessary laboratory results for an exemption get an exemption. 

 

Some of y'all seem more determined to punish people you have targeted than in crafting a sound evidence-based policy that creates safe work environments. 

I meant the booster decision on a medical policy basis*, not necessary individuals doing their own tracking. They're rolling out boosters for a reason, so someone's looking at the data.

*which, as you've pointed out many times, has been a shit show so far.

And I meant the last sentence of my post. I'm all for offering vaccine test out alternatives. Just because I don't think that it will help the most vaccine resistant populations much, doesn't mean that it isn't sound science at this point. Plus, it does force a lot of people to put their money where their mouth is.

Edited October 20, 2021 by aggie08

[Captainant 28538]

Isn't the entire point of vaccination to induce a consistent and predictable immune response, establishing a baseline antibody level? Which should remove the need to actually test to confirm on a wide scale basis. 

Prior infection doesn't guarantee natural immunity or a baseline antibody level, which is why they would need to be tested and validated. To directly answer @Satoshi and his questions that he really should know the answer to as an (alleged) medical professional. 

[Anastasis 23718]

21 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Isn't the entire point of vaccination to induce a consistent and predictable immune response, establishing a baseline antibody level? Which should remove the need to actually test to confirm on a wide scale basis. 

Prior infection doesn't guarantee natural immunity or a baseline antibody level, which is why they would need to be tested and validated. To directly answer @Satoshi and his questions that he really should know the answer to as an (alleged) medical professional. 

 

This is a pretty on brand way of CaptainAnt telling us that he doesn't understand what he is talking about at more than thimble depth. 

[Don Johnson 4847]

Make them get a periodic (30/60/90 days) antibody test.  Everyone has promoted more testing for 18 months.  Not sure why testing is an issue now.  

If cost is an issue, make them pay for it.  Its only $45 or so.  Most will gladly pay to continue to take a stand.  If that's a problem, a free vaccine is available.

Edited October 20, 2021 by Don Johnson

[Hornius Emeritus 12804]

Charles Barkley weighs in:
 

 

[Js1 87182]

Chuck - right about vaccines and right about the women in San Antonio. 

[OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys 2153]

20 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

 

She was one of the doctors in the bite coats in front of the capitol every right winger was loving because she started saying some antivax crap.  Lot of throwing on the brakes when all of her “the devil causes diphtheria” takes started coming out. 

[Captainant 28538]

6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

This is a pretty on brand way of CaptainAnt telling us that he doesn't understand what he is talking about at more than thimble depth. 

Lol why are you sticking up for an antivaxxer chiropractor who's been banned multiple times for disseminating disinformation? Shit birds of a feather stick together, I guess.

If I'm wrong, then I'd think such a big brain boi as yourself could succinctly describe the deficiency in my explanation, as opposed to just being your typical condescending self. 

So you're on record as claiming that vaccines DO NOT induce a consistent and predictable immune response? Not sure what I posted that you're disagreeing with, aside from it being posted by me

[wildcat09 29579]

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

LOL. 

If by "we" you mean the upper and middle class college educated societal outliers that post on this board and participate in research trials with serial tracking of antibodies so that we can make jokes about the "necessary immunities" being tree-fiddy, than yes.  Main factor driving boosting decisions are individual's antibody levels. 

Otherwise no, antibody testing is not routine in clinical practice to drive booster decisions. Nobody really has a firm idea how to interpret the quantitative lab results or where the thresholds of protection are, or what other unmeasured correlates of protection may be more important. 

 

Then make them pivot to something else and let the people that are willing to provide the necessary laboratory results for an exemption get an exemption. 

 

Some of y'all seem more determined to punish people you have targeted than in crafting a sound evidence-based policy that creates safe work environments. 

The sound evidenced-based policy is everyone gets vaccinated. Creating a patchwork system with a bunch of different options of varying efficacy (not to mention ability to validate) is pretty much the opposite of sound.

[Neonmoon 38130]

Posting a fucking daily mail article as proof that acquired immunity is better than vaccine immunity is on brand for the known antivaxxer GRhorn/Satorshi/WhoGivesAFuck. The point of him positing it isn't to engage in reasonable discussion about vaccines or acquired immunity, it is to sow continuous doubt. The study, if true, forgets the whole 700K people acquired death and not immunity. 

[Anastasis 23718]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Lol why are you sticking up for an antivaxxer chiropractor who's been banned multiple times for disseminating disinformation? Shit birds of a feather stick together, I guess.

If I'm wrong, then I'd think such a big brain boi as yourself could succinctly describe the deficiency in my explanation, as opposed to just being your typical condescending self. 

So you're on record as claiming that vaccines DO NOT induce a consistent and predictable immune response? Not sure what I posted that you're disagreeing with, aside from it being posted by me

Another on brand response from you.  Checks all the boxes. Look man, you don't appear to understand even the basic complexities of immunology. Some posters here are trying to have a discussion that requires at least a working level understanding those basics. Especially as it relates to the logic of government required vaccination mandates applied to recovered cases.

 

2 hours ago, Captainant said:

Isn't the entire point of vaccination to induce a consistent and predictable immune response, establishing a baseline antibody level? Which should remove the need to actually test to confirm on a wide scale basis. 

Prior infection doesn't guarantee natural immunity or a baseline antibody level, which is why they would need to be tested and validated.

Both vaccines and infection produce a heterogenous immune response across different individuals, for some reasons we understand and many more that we do not completely understand.  We know that AB levels wane after both infection and vaccination. But the humoral response is only one component of the adaptive immune response. We do not fully understand the immunological correlates of protection, but if we are going to act like AB titers are the only relevant correlate of protection, then we should be requiring proof of AB titer levels for individuals whether they were vaccinated or recovered from infection.

You propose that the vaccine intervention provides a uniform, consistent, and durable protection that requires no further demonstration, while the prior infection requires ongoing testing and validation.  There is not a strong and logical evidence based rational for that position.  If you think that public health requires an ongoing assessment of AB levels for convalescent cases, you should also take the position that public health requires an ongoing assessment of AB levels for vaccinated individuals. Essentially we move from a mandate that is based on vaccination status (or prior infection) to demonstration based on correlates of protection. Imperfect as our understanding is at this point, that would at least be consistent. 

If you don't want to go there, then based on the evidence available to date (the recent UK analysis linked up thread is informative to this exercise), the protection afforded against infection in delta setting appears to follow the rank order:

Hybrid immunity (past C19 + vaccine) ~ 3rd dose boosted mRNA

2 dose mRNA vaccine ~ C19 recovery

2 dose vector vaccine

1 dose mRNA ~ 1 dose vector vaccine

Vax and C19 naive

 

For the purpose of crafting a public health mandate, it would seem to me that the bolded situations should be treated similarly based on the evidence available.  But what has been discussed in terms of vaccine mandates is to treat the italicized equivalently.  Again, this just reflects the regulatory-centric dogmatism that has been guiding our approach in this country.

[C-Man 27779]

2 hours ago, Js1 said:

Chuck - right about vaccines and right about the women in San Antonio. 

I love Chuck even though there's this (and the many churros references). LOL.

 

2 hours ago, OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys said:

She was one of the doctors in the bite coats in front of the capitol every right winger was loving because she started saying some antivax crap.  Lot of throwing on the brakes when all of her “the devil causes diphtheria” takes started coming out. 

Yes, she is the "Demon Semen" doctor. The pride of Houston, Texas.

[Anastasis 23718]

29 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The sound evidenced-based policy is everyone gets vaccinated. Creating a patchwork system with a bunch of different options of varying efficacy (not to mention ability to validate) is pretty much the opposite of sound.

It's pretty sound and straightforward in my opinion. This is not a patchwork of options. There are two. Either prove vaccine status or seroconversion. Validation is an important consideration. If as an employer I was implementing a mandate that allowed for a past infection exemption, I would require tests that generated an audit trail. Easily accomplished by leaning on the national lab providers (Quest, LabCorp, etc.). This audit trail would be in fact more robust than the audit trail provided by an easily forged piece of paper with a CDC logo on it.

If a company wants to simply and require vaccination as the only way to satisfy the mandate, I think that's up to them. Others may want to provide an exemption for past infection.  OSHA mandate is another discussion altogether, and "grave danger" standard becomes relevant. 

[jimmyjazz 47196]

I think one difference between acquired immunity and immunity via vaccination is that, aside from fraudulent vaccine proof, we can at least identify date(s) of vaccination, and estimate reduction of immunity from there, at least as good as the science is.  Prior infection would probably rely on individual testimony in too many cases.  I suppose proof of a positive covid test at a legit testing location (doctor, pharmacy, etc.) could suffice.  If the science exists, we could roll forward from that date to determine the point in time where immunity might be questioned without testing.

Honestly, testing everyone regardless of how they acquired immunity, if reliable, seems pretty logical.  I just don't know how reliable it is.

[4th&Five 42005]

 

[Satoshi 129]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

Posting a fucking daily mail article as proof that acquired immunity is better than vaccine immunity is on brand for the known antivaxxer GRhorn/Satorshi/WhoGivesAFuck. The point of him positing it isn't to engage in reasonable discussion about vaccines or acquired immunity, it is to sow continuous doubt. The study, if true, forgets the whole 700K people acquired death and not immunity. 

 

I posted the article because I figured it might be easier to digest for those that don’t look at data often. I also linked the source material which you disregarded. I’ll do the not so heavy lifting for you. 
 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveytechnicalarticleimpactofvaccinationontestingpositiveintheuk/latest

1.Main points

• Vaccination significantly reduced the risk of people testing positive during both the Alpha-dominant period and the Delta-dominant period.

• Vaccine effectiveness was reduced in the Delta-dominant period compared with the Alpha-dominant period, particularly in preventing infections with symptoms.

• Two doses of either Pfizer-BioNTech or Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines provided a similar level of protection to prior natural infection when the Delta variant was dominant.

• Two doses of either vaccine provided significantly greater protection than one dose across all analyses.

Delta-dominant period (17 May to 14 August 2021)

During the Delta-dominant period from 17 May to 14 August 2021, there were 8,306 polymerase chain reaction- (PCR-) positive test results that were the first positive in a new infection episode. The number of positives in each of the vaccine status exposure groups can be found in the accompanying dataset.

Figure 5 shows the risk ratios for testing positive by vaccine exposure group during the Delta-dominant period, irrespective of vaccine type:

• two vaccine doses (14 days or more previously) reduced the risk of testing positive by 67% (95% confidence interval: 64% to 70%) during the Delta period. During the Alpha period this figure was 79% (95% confidence interval: 73% to 84%)

• there was no evidence that the reduction in risk of infection from two vaccine doses (14 days or more previously) differed from that of previous natural infection (71% risk reduction, 95% confidence interval: 65% to 77%)

• two doses (14 days or more previously) provided a greater reduction in risk than one dose (21 days or more previously), which reduced the risk of testing positive by 49% (95% confidence interval: 44% to 53%)

 

 

Again, the concern is we’re vilifying people and ruining their livelihoods under false presumptions. The alternative is that we’re just trying to punish people, as Anastasis suggested. 
 

People on this forum straight up hate unvaccinated people. Even naturally recovered ones whose immunity is roughly equivalent. It would be good for the country and lower the temperature a bit if that fact was simply, officially acknowledged and policy adjusted accordingly. 
 

Just wait til places start mandating kids get vaccinated despite documented previous infection. Literally anti science. 

[Lurch 5950]

Do we know if degree of exposure impacts the level of immunity developed? My uneducated fear would be that someone could have been minimally exposed causing an inadequate response for defenses to prepare for a later exposure. Ie can you have just enough antibodies to register their existence but not enough to generate more quickly when you need them to fight a new infection

[Sawbonz 28220]

31 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

"grave danger"

[DDD Dad 14649]

3 hours ago, Captainant said:

Lol why are you sticking up for an antivaxxer chiropractor who's been banned multiple times for disseminating disinformation? Shit birds of a feather stick together, I guess.

If I'm wrong, then I'd think such a big brain boi as yourself could succinctly describe the deficiency in my explanation, as opposed to just being your typical condescending self. 

So you're on record as claiming that vaccines DO NOT induce a consistent and predictable immune response? Not sure what I posted that you're disagreeing with, aside from it being posted by me

 

56 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Another on brand response from you.  Checks all the boxes. Look man, you don't appear to understand even the basic complexities of immunology. Some posters here are trying to have a discussion that requires at least a working level understanding those basics. Especially as it relates to the logic of government required vaccination mandates applied to recovered cases.

 

Both vaccines and infection produce a heterogenous immune response across different individuals, for some reasons we understand and many more that we do not completely understand.  We know that AB levels wane after both infection and vaccination. But the humoral response is only one component of the adaptive immune response. We do not fully understand the immunological correlates of protection, but if we are going to act like AB titers are the only relevant correlate of protection, then we should be requiring proof of AB titer levels for individuals whether they were vaccinated or recovered from infection.

You propose that the vaccine intervention provides a uniform, consistent, and durable protection that requires no further demonstration, while the prior infection requires ongoing testing and validation.  There is not a strong and logical evidence based rational for that position.  If you think that public health requires an ongoing assessment of AB levels for convalescent cases, you should also take the position that public health requires an ongoing assessment of AB levels for vaccinated individuals. Essentially we move from a mandate that is based on vaccination status (or prior infection) to demonstration based on correlates of protection. Imperfect as our understanding is at this point, that would at least be consistent. 

If you don't want to go there, then based on the evidence available to date (the recent UK analysis linked up thread is informative to this exercise), the protection afforded against infection in delta setting appears to follow the rank order:

Hybrid immunity (past C19 + vaccine) ~ 3rd dose boosted mRNA

2 dose mRNA vaccine ~ C19 recovery

2 dose vector vaccine

1 dose mRNA ~ 1 dose vector vaccine

Vax and C19 naive

 

For the purpose of crafting a public health mandate, it would seem to me that the bolded situations should be treated similarly based on the evidence available.  But what has been discussed in terms of vaccine mandates is to treat the italicized equivalently.  Again, this just reflects the regulatory-centric dogmatism that has been guiding our approach in this country.

Why don't y'all just fuck already?

[Captainant 28538]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

You propose that the vaccine intervention provides a uniform, consistent, and durable protection that requires no further demonstration, while the prior infection requires ongoing testing and validation.  There is not a strong and logical evidence based rational for that position.  If you think that public health requires an ongoing assessment of AB levels for convalescent cases, you should also take the position that public health requires an ongoing assessment of AB levels for vaccinated individuals. Essentially we move from a mandate that is based on vaccination status (or prior infection) to demonstration based on correlates of protection. Imperfect as our understanding is at this point, that would at least be consistent. 

Compared to random infection with random levels of AB response, vaccination certainly is a more consistent and statistically meaningful improvement in predictability of protection.

If you were vaxxed 6 months ago, you're likely to have comparable AB levels and response to another person who was vaxxed 6 months ago. It creates a relative baseline for making public health decisions that enables sampling of the general public to avoid full-scale AB testing on every person.

If you claim you were infected 3 months ago, you're considerably less, or not at all, likely to have similar AB levels and response to another person who claims they were infected 3 months ago. There's no baseline that lets you sample the public to guide policy.

My point was that vaccination ensures a baseline level of protection that enables large-scale policy decisions to be made with a degree of certainty of how they'll turn out.

In your bolded situations, you're arguing that if you're vaccinate you probably don't need to be tested as much as someone who is unvaccinated. That is the same thing I'm arguing. 

But you are also supporting GRUhorn's position that if you claim prior infection, then you don't need to get tested OR vaccinated. 

EDIT: reread your post to see that you did mean that simple claimed prior infection is just as good two doses of confirmed vaccination. Interadesting. IDK man, every bit of science I've seen is unequivocal that getting vaccinated is the single best thing for fighting COVID - prior infection or not.

If there's virtually zero risk in getting vaccinated, why would you give people options to not get vaccinated? That's just bad policy when half the country operates in bad faith.

Edited October 20, 2021 by Captainant

[DDD Dad 14649]

19 minutes ago, Satoshi said:

Again, the concern is we’re vilifying people and ruining their livelihoods under false presumptions. The alternative is that we’re just trying to punish people, as Anastasis suggested. 

People on this forum straight up hate unvaccinated people. Even naturally recovered ones whose immunity is roughly equivalent. It would be good for the country and lower the temperature a bit if that fact was simply, officially acknowledged and policy adjusted accordingly. 

Just wait til places start mandating kids get vaccinated despite documented previous infection. Literally anti science. 

I will vilify those who can't paste in plain text.  And those who sow dissention.

 

Not sure whose livelihoods are being ruined under false presumptions.  

I don't hate unvaccinated people.  There are some who cannot yet be vaccinated (children), some who for legitimate medical reasons cannot be vaccinated, and hundreds of millions around the world who still don't have access to vaccines.

Do I hate those who choose not to be vaccinated despite being eligible and having access to vaccines?  I think hate is too strong a word.  I think most of them are ill-informed (some intentionally but most unwittingly), many are selfish, and some are just fucking stupid and can't be reached.  But I don't hate them.

Edited October 20, 2021 by DDD Dad

[JimmyJames 12271]

Has anybody here done their own research into “the data?” If so please post it here. Thx in advance. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

It doesn’t matter how much “data” you find after “conducting your own research” if you are unable to interpret it correctly you’re still just talking out of your ass. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 34105]

so by the looks of things we have everything figured out. good job, guys!

[HornOnTheBayou 9062]

 

[SaucyJack 3520]

1 hour ago, C-Man said:

I love Chuck even though there's this (and the many churros references). LOL.

 

Yes, she is the "Demon Semen" doctor. The pride of Houston, Texas.

Last game at Convention Center Arena. 
 

If you look closely you can spot me. 
 

I forgive you, Chuck. 

[SimonBolivar 11064]

My worst customer passed away last month.

 

Dude was a real dick to anyone and everyone. He had also drank himself so silly he couldn't really keep up with what he had in his account on a day to day basis. He'd come in at 9AM on a Wednesday lit as fuck screaming about "That mother fucker Trump is coming back to take care of us" at the top of his lungs or he'd call me from AT&T saying to cancel everything they've ever done out of his account after they kicked him out for sexually assaulting their in store rep. Well being an alcoholic, smoker, and 40lbs overweight is not good for a 60 year old unvaccinated racist. On the 7th he was spending $78 at the liquor store and by the 11th he was dead. The death certificate says nothing but Covid and time was listed as days....oh well.

[aggie08 21797]

3 minutes ago, HornOnTheBayou said:

 

A selfish asshat who thinks the earth is flat, lies about flight cancellations, police unions, adults cussing out school administrators in districts their own kids don't attend, and Dan fucking Bongino. What a great list to be on. What the fuck did In-N-Out do to make the list?

[Longhorn_Fan68 34105]

1 minute ago, aggie08 said:

A selfish asshat who thinks the earth is flat, lies about flight cancellations, police unions, adults cussing out school administrators in districts their own kids don't attend, and Dan fucking Bongino. What a great list to be on. What the fuck did In-N-Out do to make the list?

be shitty and from california? in Ohio that's "winning"

[aggie08 21797]

Just now, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

be shitty and from california? in Ohio that's "winning"

Ok, man, I know there's a lot of Whataburger loyalty around these parts, but "shitty" is a bridge too far. Good day, good sir!

[ultimaton 2985]

 

10 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

A selfish asshat who thinks the earth is flat, lies about flight cancellations, police unions, adults cussing out school administrators in districts their own kids don't attend, and Dan fucking Bongino. What a great list to be on. What the fuck did In-N-Out do to make the list?

https://www.npr.org/2021/10/20/1047638276/in-n-out-burger-san-francisco-vaccine-mandate

Quote

"We fiercely disagree with any government dictate that forces a private company to discriminate against customers who choose to patronize their business," he wrote. "This is clear governmental overreach and is intrusive, improper, and offensive."

 

Edited October 20, 2021 by ultimaton

[Longhorn_Fan68 34105]

8 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Ok, man, I know there's a lot of Whataburger loyalty around these parts, but "shitty" is a bridge too far. Good day, good sir!

P Terry's says hi and stop eating that other bullshit

[aggie08 21797]

8 minutes ago, ultimaton said:

\

https://www.npr.org/2021/10/20/1047638276/in-n-out-burger-san-francisco-vaccine-mandate

Ah. Well, I think we can all take a step back and agree that San Fran has way the fuck overcorrected (no shock there), and that checking vaccination status of people voluntarily going somewhere to eat or drink (especially one that has a really available drive-thru option) is fucking dumb.

Plus, they need all 726 of their employees in the kitchen or manning the drive thru lane full time. No time for distractions.

Edited October 20, 2021 by aggie08

[Sawbonz 28220]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

you did mean that simple claimed prior infection

Where does he say that

[956 Worldwide 35594]

33 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Ah. Well, I think we can all take a step back and agree that San Fran has way the fuck overcorrected (no shock there), and that checking vaccination status of people voluntarily going somewhere to eat or drink (especially one that has a really available drive-thru option) is fucking dumb.

Plus, they need all 726 of their employees in the kitchen or manning the drive thru lane full time. No time for distractions.

I was in Austria a few weeks back and every single restaurant asked to see a negative test or vax status for adults. Also looked for signs of creeping totalitarianism and decay; found lots of tidy squares, great coffee, and functioning infrastructure. 
 

Sometimes I marvel at how badly we can lose our collective shit as a nation. 
 

 

[Anastasis 23718]

10 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Where does he say that

I didn't.  Ant continually misrepresents the discussion, because he either doesn't understand it, can't track it effectively, or is just being dishonest as a form of rhetoric. 

[Captainant 28538]

15 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Where does he say that

 

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Hybrid immunity (past C19 + vaccine) ~ 3rd dose boosted mRNA

2 dose mRNA vaccine ~ C19 recovery

2 dose vector vaccine

1 dose mRNA ~ 1 dose vector vaccine

Vax and C19 naive

 

For the purpose of crafting a public health mandate, it would seem to me that the bolded situations should be treated similarly based on the evidence available

Is that not saying that claimed prior infection is the same as a 2 dose mRNA vax?

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I didn't.  Ant continually misrepresents the discussion, because he either doesn't understand it, can't track it effectively, or is just being dishonest as a form of rhetoric. 

Oh, go cash some more medical debt checks and suck off the teat of for profit healthcare some more

[956 Worldwide 35594]

5 hours ago, Anastasis said:

 

This is a pretty on brand way of CaptainAnt telling us that he doesn't understand what he is talking about at more than thimble depth. 

I don’t have more than a thimbles depth understanding and won’t wade into debates on what’s more effective. My stance is based solely on the following:

1. The Venn diagram overlap of “people who are arguing for natural immunity” and “people who are searching for bullshit excuses to not get vaxxed” is a near perfect circle. 

2. As far as I can tell, no one argues that getting vaxxed after COVID recovery is somehow dangerous or will hurt you.

3. It seems from a logistics point of view that giving people shots and writing down when that happened is a hell of a lot easier than tracking who got sick when or some other mishmash. It’s not hard to do this shit.
 

I don’t know shit about vaxxes but I know a lot about negotiating with intransigent and unreasonable parties. (I am not a Surly Law dog though). And a key lesson— caving to a demand offered in bad faith is simply an invitation to surrender to more bad faith arguments, even if the initial bad faith argument could be justified if made in good faith. They treat these concessions as a reward for their unreasonable behavior. Bad faith arguments are the surest sign negotiation isn’t going anywhere but is just a stalling tactic.

So yes, it is time to resort to coercion and make the cost of being unreasonable more painful than remaining intransigent. 

[C-Man 27779]

2 hours ago, SaucyJack said:

Last game at Convention Center Arena. 
 

If you look closely you can spot me. 
 

I forgive you, Chuck. 

HemisFair

Man, I'm not sure I've ever heard a louder arena than HemisFair during the three ass-kickings we gave to Portland in the spring of 1990.

[Dahobbs 18321]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

 

Is that not saying that claimed prior infection is the same as a 2 dose mRNA vax?

No. It is saying actual recovery from prior infection is roughly equivalent to 2 dose mRNA vaccination. You added the word "claimed" all on your own.  I feel comfortable in saying that both you and @Anastasis are playing games in attempt to get the other. It is silly on both parts.

It would help if people would clearly indicate when they are addressing the science as opposed to public policy. For the former, it would be correct to say that we have plenty of reasons to believe that recovery from prior infection provides roughly the same protection as mRNA vaccination. But for the latter we might still proof require vaccination for all due to the complications in proving recovery from prior infection versus the simplicity of proving prior vaccination. 

Edited October 20, 2021 by Dahobbs

[Anastasis 23718]

35 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

So yes, it is time to resort to coercion and make the cost of being unreasonable more painful than remaining intransigent. 

Again, it does not seem that the motivation here is a safe working environment for employees.  The motivation appears punitive against those that you feel are unreasonable and intransigent. And maybe they are being unreasonable and intransigent. But autonomy is a basic principle of biomedical ethics. To the extent that that ethical principle can be balanced while meeting the public health needs, we should do so. Unless the purpose is not to achieve public health goals while balancing the principles such as autonomy, and instead the goal is exert your concept of justice on the people you find unreasonable. 

Proving up seroconversion is not logistically challenging, and can be done in a way that ensures greater audit capabilities and with much less risk of fraud being involved. It's not hard, and it is not an unreasonable compromise to land on for people that have been previously infected and are willing to take the test. In fact it is much easier logistically than the testing protocol requirements that OSHA will roll out. The "logistics are too hard argument" is a red herring. 

 

[Anastasis 23718]

11 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

It would help if people would clearly indicate when they are addressing the science as opposed to public policy... But for the latter we might still proof require vaccination for all due to the complications in proving recovery from prior infection versus the simplicity of proving prior vaccination. 

Except that the public health policy (at least as implemented by OSHA) is going to apparently allow for entering into a weekly testing protocol as an exemption.  It's as simple as allowing an employee to demonstrate seroconversion via a lab test as an option. But the logistics, I guess.  

Edited October 20, 2021 by Anastasis

[Captainant 28538]

7 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Again, it does not seem that the motivation here is a safe working environment for employees.  The motivation appears punitive against those that you feel are unreasonable and intransigent. And maybe they are being unreasonable and intransigent. But autonomy is a basic principle of biomedical ethics. To the extent that that ethical principle can be balanced while meeting the public health needs, we should do so. Unless the purpose is not to achieve public health goals while balancing the principles such as autonomy, and instead the goal is exert your concept of justice on the people you find unreasonable. 

Man it's like you've never read Jacobson v Massachusetts where the supreme court examined this exact question. The court found that "as to an adult residing in the community, and a fit subject of vaccination, the statute [vaccine mandate] is not invalid as in derogation of any of the rights of such person under the Fourteenth Amendment". 

And ya know what - I do suppose that simple proof of prior infection and robust immune response would be good enough to meet the bare minimum requirement. But I'm not dumb enough to think that it wouldn't be abused by bad actors and "muh rights" goons.

Plus, there's the small detail that vaccinating everyone who is "a fit subject of vaccination" will absolutely lessen the severity of the pandemic and improve public health overall. Which I thought was the desired outcome here.

[SaucyJack 3520]

58 minutes ago, C-Man said:

HemisFair

Man, I'm not sure I've ever heard a louder arena than HemisFair during the three ass-kickings we gave to Portland in the spring of 1990.

Correct. 

Portland talked a lotta noise against the merger. 

Playoff games were insane in the 70s; especially against Boston, Washington and LA. 

Sorry for derail. 

[Sawbonz 28220]

2 hours ago, Captainant said:

 

Is that not saying that claimed prior infection is the same as a 2 dose mRNA vax?

Oh, go cash some more medical debt checks and suck off the teat of for profit healthcare some more

I assume he means documented infection

[Satoshi 129]

9 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Man it's like you've never read Jacobson v Massachusetts where the supreme court examined this exact question. The court found that "as to an adult residing in the community, and a fit subject of vaccination, the statute [vaccine mandate] is not invalid as in derogation of any of the rights of such person under the Fourteenth Amendment". 

And ya know what - I do suppose that simple proof of prior infection and robust immune response would be good enough to meet the bare minimum requirement. But I'm not dumb enough to think that it wouldn't be abused by bad actors and "muh rights" goons.

Plus, there's the small detail that vaccinating everyone who is "a fit subject of vaccination" will absolutely lessen the severity of the pandemic and improve public health overall. Which I thought was the desired outcome here.

We can also tease this out further a few months. Will people that have had two shots and recovered from an infection be restricted from certain public spaces or subject to termination if they don’t get a mandated booster shot? If immunity doesn’t matter for unvaxxed why should it matter for just double vaxxed? You’re not doing everything you can. 
 

And don’t forget the kid angle. Even better than punishing your enemies personally, is punishing them as parents and forcing their kids to be vaccinated for a disease that causes them almost no harm, even after they already have recovered from it. Thank God I live in Texas. 

Edited October 20, 2021 by Satoshi

[Jive Turkey 13001]