Jump to content

COVID-19 (Aka China Virus)


Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, VMFA187 said:

Here is what I know.

Two of my closest friends had the virus in June after I spent the weekend at their house. She got tested on Tuesday after feeling a bit under the weather on Monday. Her results came back positive Thursday. He had a sore throat and lost his sense of taste from Tuesday - Friday. I had a sore throat on Wednesday and Thursday (went for outdoor runs both mornings) with slight difficulty sleeping. I never got tested. 

This experience mirrors almost every single person I've personally spoken to who has had the virus - A minor annoyance. I know absolutely zero people who have died from the virus and absolutely zero who have been hospitalized. 

Forgive me if I trust my experiences over the MSM who get paid by viewership knowing that fear sells. 

Feel free to believe whateverthefukc you want. I don't care. In the nearly year this has been happening I don't know a single person who has been hospitalized for it. 

 

My cousin died from COVID. She was a phlebotomist. She drew blood from people and was only 5 years older than me.

An O-5 I know was hospitalized after contracting COVID..

Edited by MyCS
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

These horror stories of police arresting people on the beach or dragging people out of church are way overblown.  The media is going to over-report anything that will get views and outrage--similar to

The Crozier situation has sparked many illuminating conversations up and down the chain.  No, we don’t know all details but the core issues ring true to anyone who has experienced mid-level authority

You went from making a reasonable point to saying religious people should all get together and give themselves coronovirus because they’re stupid.  Not sure why or how you made this leap, but maybe yo

Posted Images

2 minutes ago, VMFA187 said:

Yes, people generally value the lives of the young more than the old, all things being equal because more life is lost when a young person dies. 

There are two separate types of induced damage - Death and economic. The vast majority of economic damage has been government induced. What is wrong with those who are at-risk or fearful of the virus from self-isolating? 

 

That's a very legitimate point, one I agree with.  But your attitude towards the virus side of it makes it hard to truly get after the poor govt response because the conspiracy theory whackjobs can't get past the "this is fake" part to have a real discussion.  Govt is screwing this up by the numbers. Trump made it worse by a factor of who knows how stinkin much, so now all his Trumpkins will.never admit it, and prolong this much more than it would have been a problem. If reasonable people start acting like it's real, take it seriously, the tools will fall in line, and we can do more common sense things to fix the economy.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MyCS said:

My cousin died from COVID. She was a phlebotomist. They draw blood from people.

 

An O-5 I know was hospitalized after contracting COVID..

I'm sorry to hear that. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, slackline said:

That's a very legitimate point, one I agree with.  But your attitude towards the virus side of it makes it hard to truly get after the poor govt response because the conspiracy theory whackjobs can't get past the "this is fake" part to have a real discussion.  Govt is screwing this up by the numbers. Trump made it worse by a factor of who knows how stinkin much, so now all his Trumpkins will.never admit it, and prolong this much more than it would have been a problem. If reasonable people start acting like it's real, take it seriously, the tools will fall in line, and we can do more common sense things to fix the economy.

I never said its not "real." It is a minor nuisance to the vast majority of people and a real threat to a very small population, who are unfortunately already prone to dying. But state and local governments, mainly those led by democratic leaders, for whatever reason, are causing it to be much more than a nuisance to the entire population with pretty much only negative results. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

Open up the economy. 
 

if you’re opposed to this you probably have been getting a steady paycheck every two weeks. 
 

check your privilege 

I can’t disagree with this based on our current government’s ineptitude. They are damning poor people and small businesses. Even landlords.


A more middle grounded solution would have been to provide funds to high risk folks to actually quarantine while allowing everyone that’s not high risk to take whatever precautions they want. Would still result in over hospitalization, so target that problem.

To put it in perspective, we could have given the 100M “high risk” Americans 20k this year (enough for food and shelter, don’t come outside) and still had $1T for medical system fortifications (this is an actually insane amount of money) for the same cost as the $3.1T in stimulus bills we’ve wasted. It’s insane.

I’m not saying that’s the right answer, but it sure as hell would have done more for America than whatever the hell we did. And it would have actually involved personal responsibility and liberty, at least to an extent.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VMFA187 said:

I never said its not "real." It is a minor nuisance to the vast majority of people and a real threat to a very small population, who are unfortunately already prone to dying. But state and local governments, mainly those led by democratic leaders, for whatever reason, are causing it to be much more than a nuisance to the entire population with pretty much only negative results. 

Ya know I wrote this whole angry reply but I deleted it. Here's what I think:

A) I'm glad COVID hasn't affected your family much; count yourself as lucky.

B) If you want to end the pandemic-mitigation measures, I hope you're getting vaccinated ASAP and encouraging everyone you know to do the same. I sure am!

C) I would tread a bit more lightly re: "Well I don't know anyone who died..." because many, many of us do and it's kind of a dick move to base your entire world view on the extremely narrow lense of your own personal experiences.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

To put it in perspective, we could have given the 100M “high risk” Americans 20k this year (enough for food and shelter, don’t come outside) and still had $1T for medical system fortifications (this is an actually insane amount of money) for the same cost as the $3.1T in stimulus bills we’ve wasted. It’s insane.
extent.


Even if you threw all the money at healthcare, the fact of the matter is there is not enough doctors and nurses in our country (and that was before the pandemic). It still takes 4 years to make a medical resident (assuming they have their bachelor's degree), and an additional 2-4 years to make them a doctor who doesn't require supervision. It takes 2 years to make a registered nurse, though many places won't hire an RN if they don't have a BSN (4 year degree), even though they both have the same license and can do all of the same procedures and care.

Sure, you could buy more equipment, assuming the supply chain could accommodate a surge in demand.

Also, you can't just tell the high risk to stay home without an economic impact. Maybe the elderly, but anyone with other risk factors but younger are out and working. Maybe they can telework, maybe not. If they work for a smaller company, that absence will be felt, and that person would likely be replaced by a new hire (if there's another person available, since a people staying home on quarantine means there will be competition for workers). Or the company reorganizes and eliminates that position. What happens to the person that was allowed to quarantine post pandemic? Their job is now gone, and businesses have gotten more efficient.

It also doesn't fully solve the exposure problem. If one person in the household is high risk and the other isn't, you still have someone going out into public and risks bringing it home with them. Yes, there's some lower risk if that high-person can stay home, but it hasn't eliminated it for them, especially if things like masks and social distancing aren't in place.
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, VMFA187 said:

I never said its not "real." It is a minor nuisance to the vast majority of people and a real threat to a very small population, who are unfortunately already prone to dying. But state and local governments, mainly those led by democratic leaders, for whatever reason, are causing it to be much more than a nuisance to the entire population with pretty much only negative results. 

Go fuck yourself.

I have no underlying health concerns and it nearly KILLED me and I can assure you prior I was not already prone to dying.  Idiots like you make me want to vomit...truly a clueless fuckwit.  Two of my immediate family members were thankfully released from the hospital yesterday after receiving all possible therapeutics and one being given last rites. 

I am all for keeping things open and using mitigation measures to protect those at great risk but saying this is a nuisance is fucking ignorant.  There is a lot we simply don't understand especially as it related to certain blood types. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ClearedHot said:

Go yourself.

I have no underlying health concerns and it nearly KILLED me and I can assure you prior I was not already prone to dying.  Idiots like you make me want to vomit...truly a clueless wit.  Two of my immediate family members were thankfully released from the hospital yesterday after receiving all possible therapeutics and one being given last rites. 

I am all for keeping things open and using mitigation measures to protect those at great risk but saying this is a nuisance is ing ignorant.  There is a lot we simply don't understand especially as it related to certain blood types. 

Sorry to hear that we almost lost you due to COVID. People just don't understand what it's like to have death looming over themselves or a loved one. I don't wish that upon anyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Over 70 aunt in nursing home, Covid positive, "recovered", administered vaccine and immediately experienced multiple seizures over several days.....  there are indeed ALOT of unknowns 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Go fuck yourself.

I have no underlying health concerns and it nearly KILLED me and I can assure you prior I was not already prone to dying.  Idiots like you make me want to vomit...truly a clueless fuckwit.  Two of my immediate family members were thankfully released from the hospital yesterday after receiving all possible therapeutics and one being given last rites. 

I am all for keeping things open and using mitigation measures to protect those at great risk but saying this is a nuisance is fucking ignorant.  There is a lot we simply don't understand especially as it related to certain blood types. 

This. I've lost two friends so far from it, both pilots with no underlying health concerns. One of them was in his early 40s and left behind a wife and two teenage daughters. My uncle somehow survived the ICU last week and is recovering. This is after my aunt came home and found him sitting in a chair with blue lips and she could hear him breathe before seeing him. Glad you're here!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@VMFA187 Like I had previous mentioned, I originally wrote an angrier post but deleted it and tried again. Just another data point to add: I lost my grandpa and great-aunt to COVID, and my mom and I both unfortunately picked up the virus attending the funeral. Hopefully you're keeping a running list of all the folks here who have loved ones who died so you can, ya know, update your worldview.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if it's not killing a high enough amount of folks to warrant concern by VMFA and the like, it is destroying our economy along with our healthcare system.  Wife had a friend who had a stroke, she had to be flown by airplane 4 hours north of the major city we live in to one of the few remaining ICU beds in the state.  Our healthcare workers have been doing this for 9+ months now.  It's not sustainable.  What's going to give first?  The denial of raw data and science is mind boggling.  

Our school district has been trying its hardest to stay open as much as possible.  The city district hasn't been in person since early summer.  We are in person a couple times a week and even that wasn't sustainable due to teachers/students contracting it outside of school and forcing quarantine measures and class shutdowns.  My kid hasn't talked to another teenager in the flesh since before christmas break.  

 

We're proper fucked.  

Edited by uhhello
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jazzdude said:

 


Even if you threw all the money at healthcare, the fact of the matter is there is not enough doctors and nurses in our country (and that was before the pandemic). It still takes 4 years to make a medical resident (assuming they have their bachelor's degree), and an additional 2-4 years to make them a doctor who doesn't require supervision. It takes 2 years to make a registered nurse, though many places won't hire an RN if they don't have a BSN (4 year degree), even though they both have the same license and can do all of the same procedures and care.

Sure, you could buy more equipment, assuming the supply chain could accommodate a surge in demand.

Also, you can't just tell the high risk to stay home without an economic impact. Maybe the elderly, but anyone with other risk factors but younger are out and working. Maybe they can telework, maybe not. If they work for a smaller company, that absence will be felt, and that person would likely be replaced by a new hire (if there's another person available, since a people staying home on quarantine means there will be competition for workers). Or the company reorganizes and eliminates that position. What happens to the person that was allowed to quarantine post pandemic? Their job is now gone, and businesses have gotten more efficient.

It also doesn't fully solve the exposure problem. If one person in the household is high risk and the other isn't, you still have someone going out into public and risks bringing it home with them. Yes, there's some lower risk if that high-person can stay home, but it hasn't eliminated it for them, especially if things like masks and social distancing aren't in place.

 

This is an interesting discussion, and, just as a reminder, it’s all a hypothetical policy.


I think a lot of your points are more a problem of tradition than anything else. I think there were many ways to think outside of the box. And this is coming from someone who believed in lockdowns and still trusts the science. I just don’t know if the current plan (threats of lockdown) is tenable in American culture. Lockdowns, when followed, work fine. But lockdowns in reality don’t work due to a multitude of sociological factors.

For example, if we had implemented a strong national health jobs/retraining system (perhaps bolstered by a trillion dollars), maybe we could have rapidly trained a surplus of low risk, unemployed people to be “respiratory techs.” That could reduce load on docs and nurses. Oh and since it’s an unprecedented emergency, let’s not arbitrarily require that training to be 1-2 years. Desperate times call for appropriate risk acceptance IMO, so let’s make it a ~6 week, intensive certification. I am absolutely sure there is something we could have done as a nation to respond to this from a job perspective to reduce the strain on the Manning side of the healthcare system. 

And I agree that this solution wouldn’t 100% solve the problem, but 100% is too lofty of a goal. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good. With policy like this, you could probably hit the 69% solution and at least benefit a bigger portion of society while preserving liberty and life for those that aren’t as affected.

And to your point about the high risk person that would lose their job under this hypothetically policy, I don’t think it makes much sense (as it would be worse under current policy). Let’s look at their lives under the current present day policy. They have two choices: 1) quit for no pay so that they don’t get COVID, business probably goes under, they go on unemployment, doesn’t work great. 2) they work and take a risk of dying, but, if they make it, they get their job! 

I don’t see how this is better.

Under the hypothetical plan, their choices are better:

1) they quit, use the $20k a year to not get sick and risk reduce. It’s the same as #1 except now they aren’t begging for food stamps. Rent is paid. Society around them still works.

2) they choose to work still. Maybe they get to keep the $20k, maybe they don’t, I’m not sure. That part of policy needs to be fleshed out. But, on the whole, the hope is enough people, given the resources, would choose #1 to greatly reduce their chances of death and/or severe illness 

Im not saying that you force people to not work. In this scenario it would just give them money that allows them the choice. Because right now, the choices aren’t good at all. Maybe it would fall off based on income, I don’t know. Bottom line, if that dude still wants to work, so be it. But he accepts the risk to himself and has a reasonable alternative other than food stamps and poverty if he realizes it’s dangerous. If someone dies when they have no option but to work, it’s a tragedy. But if someone who was high risk died when the gov was bankrolling them $1500-2000 a month to stay safe and they disregarded, well now it’s more of their own fault.

And for folks in a household, that’s not the govs problem to solve. If the gov gives a 69 year old high risk man who lives with his low risk family 20k a year to reduce his risk (arbitrary figure), he and his family should use that money to not live there. That’s the point. High risk parents with kids should use that money to reduce their risk by having their kids attend virtual school. Low risk people in low risk families wouldn’t receive anything, as it’s not needed for the overwhelming majority.

This is all pretty rambly, as it’s hypotheticals, but the point is I think there is a better compromise between liberty and life - for both high and low risk folks - if you incentivize it appropriately.

One final data point highlighting absurdity: none of us on active duty - especially officers and SNCOs - should have received $1800 in stimulus this year. But a loooooot of us did. The fact that we did highlights the inefficiencies and poor incentive structure when it comes to the current gov Covid spending.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, VMFA187 said:

I'm sorry to hear that. 

Are you tho? Seriously. I honestly don't know where you're coming from when we discuss the value of human life.  Are you looking at it in a strictly utilitarian way? Because that's a dark road indeed.

I understand that the government has caused economic damage, but in the first months of the outbreak there was no way of knowing what the ultimate death toll and survival rate would be.  Now that we have some solid data, I agree that the government can't justify extreme measures anymore.  At least in my state everything is pretty much business as usual, take normal precautions, wear a mask (or don't if you're a Trumpkin anti-masker), go on about your life and business.  I get that isn't reality in California tho......

Link to post
Share on other sites



This is an interesting discussion, and, just as a reminder, it’s all a hypothetical policy.

I think a lot of your points are more a problem of tradition than anything else. I think there were many ways to think outside of the box. And this is coming from someone who believed in lockdowns and still trusts the science. I just don’t know if the current plan (threats of lockdown) is tenable in American culture. Lockdowns, when followed, work fine. But lockdowns in reality don’t work due to a multitude of sociological factors.
For example, if we had implemented a strong national health jobs/retraining system (perhaps bolstered by a trillion dollars), maybe we could have rapidly trained a surplus of low risk, unemployed people to be “respiratory techs.” That could reduce load on docs and nurses. Oh and since it’s an unprecedented emergency, let’s not arbitrarily require that training to be 1-2 years. Desperate times call for appropriate risk acceptance IMO, so let’s make it a ~6 week, intensive certification. I am absolutely sure there is something we could have done as a nation to respond to this from a job perspective to reduce the strain on the Manning side of the healthcare system. 
And I agree that this solution wouldn’t 100% solve the problem, but 100% is too lofty of a goal. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good. With policy like this, you could probably hit the 69% solution and at least benefit a bigger portion of society while preserving liberty and life for those that aren’t as affected.
And to your point about the high risk person that would lose their job under this hypothetically policy, I don’t think it makes much sense (as it would be worse under current policy). Let’s look at their lives under the current present day policy. They have two choices: 1) quit for no pay so that they don’t get COVID, business probably goes under, they go on unemployment, doesn’t work great. 2) they work and take a risk of dying, but, if they make it, they get their job! 
I don’t see how this is better.
Under the hypothetical plan, their choices are better:
1) they quit, use the $20k a year to not get sick and risk reduce. It’s the same as #1 except now they aren’t begging for food stamps. Rent is paid. Society around them still works.
2) they choose to work still. Maybe they get to keep the $20k, maybe they don’t, I’m not sure. That part of policy needs to be fleshed out. But, on the whole, the hope is enough people, given the resources, would choose #1 to greatly reduce their chances of death and/or severe illness 
Im not saying that you force people to not work. In this scenario it would just give them money that allows them the choice. Because right now, the choices aren’t good at all. Maybe it would fall off based on income, I don’t know. Bottom line, if that dude still wants to work, so be it. But he accepts the risk to himself and has a reasonable alternative other than food stamps and poverty if he realizes it’s dangerous. If someone dies when they have no option but to work, it’s a tragedy. But if someone who was high risk died when the gov was bankrolling them $1500-2000 a month to stay safe and they disregarded, well now it’s more of their own fault.
And for folks in a household, that’s not the govs problem to solve. If the gov gives a 69 year old high risk man who lives with his low risk family 20k a year to reduce his risk (arbitrary figure), he and his family should use that money to not live there. That’s the point. High risk parents with kids should use that money to reduce their risk by having their kids attend virtual school. Low risk people in low risk families wouldn’t receive anything, as it’s not needed for the overwhelming majority.
This is all pretty rambly, as it’s hypotheticals, but the point is I think there is a better compromise between liberty and life - for both high and low risk folks - if you incentivize it appropriately.
One final data point highlighting absurdity: none of us on active duty - especially officers and SNCOs - should have received $1800 in stimulus this year. But a loooooot of us did. The fact that we did highlights the inefficiencies and poor incentive structure when it comes to the current gov Covid spending.


Really great points.

You're correct on training med techs. I'm not sure how long it takes to train a med tech, but it is much shorter.

I see your points with paying people to stay home. I think they're valid from an individual's point of view. From the business' point of view, that's still a worker lost, so they are either going to fill that position if they can, or find ways to gain efficiencies and eliminate that position. I'll admit that I left off post pandemic that many jobs will come back, but may force people into different job fields. But that's life and timing.

But you bring up a good point-Congress was very hesitant to give money directly to individuals, and elected to give money to businesses with the hopes that it would trickle down to workers, primarily in continued employment. Both options have their issues, and it's a trade-off between variables that are intertwined.

Been reading some interesting stuff online on wealth and morality in the US. Short version is we in the US, as a capitalistic and individualistic society, have tied being poor with being lazy and immorality. The corollary to that is that being rich means you worked hard to get rich, and must have shown great work ethic to get there, putting you in a position of moral superiority. In some cases, that's true. But if you have rich or well connected family, more opportunities come your way than if your family wasn't rich or well connected, which opens the door for more opportunities. So it makes it very easy to look down on people who are struggling or poor as being lazy, or for some other personal failing, when maybe they just need a hand to get back on their feet, or have an opportunity to prove themselves. On the flip side, the rich are looked up as role models, even though they may just be extremely lucky with their connections (the Kardashians, for example).

I think that's why many Americans, especially conservatives, have opposed direct payments. And Republicans are catering to businesses. Even the stimulus check we got were just that- spend money on the economy. Doesn't matter on what. It wasn't really pandemic relief for individuals, it was to keep the economic machine running since people typically start saving and cutting expenses when hard times come about.

Your example of mixed risk households is valid, but there are others that make it more difficult. (What follows isn't a spear, just my ramblings about me) My wife is pregnant, putting her at high risk for severe COVID complications as well as bad outcomes for the baby. We are fortunate enough (and have discussed) dropping down to a single income if needed to protect her and our baby, especially since she's a nurse that interacts with COVID patients. So great for us, and definitely coming from a place of privilege for that to be a legit option for us. Though we both did manage to catch COVID (likely through her work), and fortunately my wife and our future kid are well, though I'm still working through lingering complications with my flight doc despite not being hospitalized.

But other pregnant nurses she works with can't afford to drop down to a single income, though your proposed payment would likely change that, while the current plan did nothing for them. If all the pregnant nurses left my wife's clinic, their clinics would take a major hit to their patient capacity, because they already make heavy use of med techs and typically only have a couple nurses on the floor in a given shift, and are short staffed on nurses to begin with. Not to mention the couple of nurses pulled from the schedule for being COVID positive. Plus their company has a 6 month training program before they are cleared to work unsupervised. So with this in mind, can or should the government force skilled essential workers to work regardless of their risk level in the interest of the greater public good?

Lastly, I agree with you that I, as an married FGO with no kids, probably shouldn't have gotten a stimulus check (and I'm pretty sure I'll have to pay it back anyways since my income in 2020 was significantly higher than my 2019 income used to determine eligibility for to a deployment)
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Homestar said:

Are you tho? Seriously. I honestly don't know where you're coming from when we discuss the value of human life.  Are you looking at it in a strictly utilitarian way? Because that's a dark road indeed.

I understand that the government has caused economic damage, but in the first months of the outbreak there was no way of knowing what the ultimate death toll and survival rate would be.  Now that we have some solid data, I agree that the government can't justify extreme measures anymore.  At least in my state everything is pretty much business as usual, take normal precautions, wear a mask (or don't if you're a Trumpkin anti-masker), go on about your life and business.  I get that isn't reality in California tho......

If I say something, I mean it. In person or on here.

I agree that in the first month, where we knew little about the virus those measures were prudent. However, like you mentioned, it is shameful that in places like California the government is still utilizing the same actions despite knowing significantly more about the virus. Why is that?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/01/13/moderna-ceo-says-the-world-will-have-to-live-with-the-coronavirus-forever.html

Moderna CEO says COVID never going away even with vaccine. 

One thing not discussed is we don't know yet if the vaccine can get us to herd immunity even with wide adoption. It appears that scientist are very unsure whether the vaccine is effective at preventing transmission. We just received doses at our base but I refuse to be vaccinated before my parents have both doses, out of principle. Ridiculous they are in their late 70s and need to wait until late February and we have Airmen in their early 20s that can get it now. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, FLEA said:

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/01/13/moderna-ceo-says-the-world-will-have-to-live-with-the-coronavirus-forever.html

Moderna CEO says COVID never going away even with vaccine. 

One thing not discussed is we don't know yet if the vaccine can get us to herd immunity even with wide adoption. It appears that scientist are very unsure whether the vaccine is effective at preventing transmission. We just received doses at our base but I refuse to be vaccinated before my parents have both doses, out of principle. Ridiculous they are in their late 70s and need to wait until late February and we have Airmen in their early 20s that can get it now. 

 

Preach. I wrote the same thing a few pages back based on CAT briefs I attend. We are going to be wearing masks for a long time. 

I will gladly give up my doses for my parents. Still won't be getting vaccinated. 

Edited by MyCS
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, slc said:

Over 70 aunt in nursing home, Covid positive, "recovered", administered vaccine and immediately experienced multiple seizures over several days.....  there are indeed ALOT of unknowns 

This is not in regard to this specific comment.  It just reminds me to mention for all those suggestable people out there that are inclined to believe their gut, or buy into consipiracy theories:

The plan is to innoculate billions of people.  When you do anything with numbers that large, low probability events will occur.  You could hand a party balloon to 3 billion people and a non-zero number of them would stroke out and die immediately after they took it from you. 

So prepare yourself to be skeptical of cause-and-effect claims for any side effects of the vaccine.  There will be numerous cases of people who were 'destined' to die at 5pm on Wednesday, and just happened to have their vaccination at 4pm.  There will be numerous cases of people 'destined' to develop ALS or Guillain-Barre syndrome in June that just happened to get vaccinated in late May. 

Conspiracy theorists will have a field day with this, but 'legitimate' media will focus on it as well because tradgedy sells.  Unless the claims come with statistics that show significance, they're noise.  Treat it as such.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FLEA said:

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/01/13/moderna-ceo-says-the-world-will-have-to-live-with-the-coronavirus-forever.html

Moderna CEO says COVID never going away even with vaccine. 

One thing not discussed is we don't know yet if the vaccine can get us to herd immunity even with wide adoption. It appears that scientist are very unsure whether the vaccine is effective at preventing transmission. We just received doses at our base but I refuse to be vaccinated before my parents have both doses, out of principle. Ridiculous they are in their late 70s and need to wait until late February and we have Airmen in their early 20s that can get it now.

The possible ability for a vaccinated person to carry and transmit live virus has zero impact on being able to reach herd immunity (which doesn't mean the virus dies out completely, by the way).  In fact, it would only "help" that cause by leading to more naturally aquired immunity through infection.  Vaccinated people could be shedding massive amounts of virus into the ether, and if everybody around also has vaccine derived immunity, then nothing happens.

The only question that matters is what the nature of both vaccine and infection based immunity is.  How long does it last?  How often will mutations occur, and will immunity extend to the new strains?

Vaccine dervied antibody immunity probably dissipates over time.  We don't know yet.  However, lifetime cellular immunity will likely reduce duration and severity of future infections even if antibody protection goes away.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, FLEA said:

Moderna CEO says COVID never going away even with vaccine.

I’m sure the CEO of the pharmaceutical company making billions off a vaccine doesn’t want the disease to go away. Ever. 

He’s probably right. COVID isn’t as deadly as smallpox, which humans did eradicate. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/24/2020 at 3:42 PM, Snuggie said:

Through some luck and timing I was offered and given the Pfizer COVID vaccine yesterday from my civilian job. So far the only side effect I've noticed is my arm being sore. Otherwise I feel fine. 

Second dose slightly worse than the first. Sore arm and got hit with fatigue the day after the vaccine. Heard a variety of side effects from staff coming in for their second vaccine, most were pretty mild. 

My hospital has enough doses to give everybody who wants one a vaccine and should finish with first doses within the next few weeks. 

I disagree with many parts of my state's COVID policy but they have done a good job so far with vaccinations. Of course the hardest part is ahead as the vaccinations need to go out to the general population. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...