Proof of vaccination or negative COVID test required to attend games

[Deron Williams]

Got any papers that passed peer review?

I offered four sources that confirm vaccination-generated immunity is better. You offered a decades-old anti-vaccine trope and a paper that hasn't even been positively reviewed.

You're apparently too stupid to realize your papers are comparing vax + natural immunity to just natural immunity. They are NOT comparing vax vs. natural immunity. The phrasing in the CDC headline is deliberately deceiving to fool morons like you.

From the KY study:
"The study of hundreds of Kentucky residents with previous infections through June 2021 found that those who were unvaccinated had 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with those who were fully vaccinated."

 

[TheGoldStandard]

You're apparently too stupid to realize your papers are comparing vax + natural immunity to just natural immunity. They are NOT comparing vax vs. natural immunity. The phrasing in the CDC headline is deliberately deceiving to fool morons like you.

From the KY study:
"The study of hundreds of Kentucky residents with previous infections through June 2021 found that those who were unvaccinated had 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with those who were fully vaccinated."

I agree that a lot of emerging data shows (studies are conflicting) that someone that has had covid and no vaccine has better immunity generally, although the studies haven't been long enough to show how that protection lasts over time. You make a valid point.

Since all the same studies show that you get even better immunity with both (whether you get Covid before or after vaccine, coupled with the vaccine having basically zero risk of death or severe complications (other than those with vaccine related allergies, etc.), I don't really see how it is relevant unless you believe getting the virus is the best way to protect you from the virus. I also heard getting pregnant is the best way to avoid getting pregnant, at least for a while.

Even with breakthrough risk, hospitalization, severe illness, etc., all drop for vaccinated people with where getting the virus has a fairly high risk of death and/or long-term or severe illness. We are seeing very few hospitalizations of vaccinated people, and most of those were already high risk. You have to take into account that as you age, your immune response weakens, which is likely the reason a lot of younger people feel awful for a couple days after getting the vaccine, and most older people feel fine.

Also, telling someone they are "too stupid" and calling them "morons like you" will do nothing to convince them.

If you want to convince @One Brow of your argument, you should relate to him, explain where his position is accurate, while showing him data as to why he is wrong. Simply calling someone names and berating them will never convince someone of your position, you ****ing idiot.

 

[Nate505]

Since this has just devolved into another vaccination back and forth, I'm moving it.

 

[gandalfe]

Since this is just devolved into another vaccination back and forth, I'm moving it.

I was actually going to suggest that.

 

[Deron Williams]

I agree that a lot of emerging data shows (studies are conflicting) that someone that has had covid and no vaccine has better immunity generally, although the studies haven't been long enough to show how that protection lasts over time. You make a valid point.

Since all the same studies show that you get even better immunity with both (whether you get Covid before or after vaccine, coupled with the vaccine having basically zero risk of death or severe complications (other than those with vaccine related allergies, etc.), I don't really see how it is relevant unless you believe getting the virus is the best way to protect you from the virus. I also heard getting pregnant is the best way to avoid getting pregnant, at least for a while.

Even with breakthrough risk, hospitalization, severe illness, etc., all drop for vaccinated people with where getting the virus has a fairly high risk of death and/or long-term or severe illness. We are seeing very few hospitalizations of vaccinated people, and most of those were already high risk. You have to take into account that as you age, your immune response weakens, which is likely the reason a lot of younger people feel awful for a couple days after getting the vaccine, and most older people feel fine.

Also, telling someone they are "too stupid" and calling them "morons like you" will do nothing to convince them.

If you want to convince @One Brow of your argument, you should relate to him, explain where his position is accurate, while showing him data as to why he is wrong. Simply calling someone names and berating them will never convince someone of your position, you ****ing idiot.

The risk calculus changes if you're already protected via natural immunity. Given that natural immunity looks to offer robust protection from severe disease, risks from the vaccine may very well outweigh the benefits of added vax protection for certain groups. E.g., if you're already in a low risk group (young & healthy) and have natural immunity on top of that, the vax is unlikely to provide any significant benefit.

It's also relevant in that 1) if nat immunity proves to be superior to the vax, there's no logical justification for imposing mandates on ppl w/natural immunity and 2) with a limited supply of vax worldwide, the most efficient use is on high-risk groups, not those who've already beat the virus.

As to your other point, both of them are beyond convincing. They post the same nonsense in every thread--always w/smug assuredness--yet don't even understand the data behind what they're posting. Note that neither of them seemed to realize the KY study wasn't actually comparing vax vs. natural immunity. They can't be bothered to actually read. They saw a headline that aligned with their "vax = good" worldview and aren't interested in any nuance beyond that.

 

[One Brow]

You're apparently too stupid to realize your papers are comparing vax + natural immunity to just natural immunity.

Had you actually read them, you could see easily that is not true.

From the KY study:

I did not link to that study.

Are you capable of responding to what people actually post?

 

[One Brow]

As to your other point, both of them are beyond convincing.

I'm "both of them"?

They post the same nonsense in every thread--always w/smug assuredness--yet don't even understand the data behind what they're posting.

Which of us is so smug that they accuse me of referring to study that I didn't even use?

Feel free to bring actual data, from something good enough to pass peer review. Then we can see which of us can understand it.

Note that neither of them seemed to realize the KY study wasn't actually comparing vax vs. natural immunity.

Again with "them"?

They can't be bothered to actually read.

Irony upon irony.

 

[Deron Williams]

I'm "both of them"?


Which of us is so smug that they accuse me of referring to study that I didn't even use?

Feel free to bring actual data, from something good enough to pass peer review. Then we can see which of us can understand it.


Again with "them"?



Irony upon irony.

I forget if you're the hyperliberal caricature of a soyboy that posted videos last summer or the guy who stalks the IG of Donovan & his extended family. In either case, you are a clown.

First of all, the plural is referencing you and Fishon, to whom my initial response was directed.

More importantly, the Nebraska link you posted cites the "2.34x increased likelihood" which comes directly from the CDC KY paper. Your JHU link also references a 2.5x times higher chance of REINFECTION (not infection, REinfection). Again, that's coming from the same KY study.

You are stupid and were fooled by the misleading CDC headline. Once it was explained to you that the CDC study didn't actually compare natural vs. vax immunity, you were again too stupid to realize that your data was just a collection of articles referencing that same exact CDC study.

All you can do is screech about "good enough for peer review." You don't have the capacity or willingness to look at data and interpret it for yourself. You'll continue to smugly parrot whatever tripe the media throws out.

Again, you're an absolute ****ing clown. I'm not going to post anymore in this thread.

 

[Rubashov]

Who on the pro-vaccine side do you see as being hateful?

Im hateful! Frequently violent too...

 

[Rubashov]

true and most likely considerably less if it's been 6 months or more since you had your vaccination. People in the US are nuts if they're not still taking all the other precautions

Contraception? Abortion is about to be illegal in the US. Because... religion...

 

[TheGoldStandard]

First of all, the plural is referencing you and Fishon, to whom my initial response was directed.

More importantly, the Nebraska link you posted cites the "2.34x increased likelihood" which comes directly from the CDC KY paper. Your JHU link also references a 2.5x times higher chance of REINFECTION (not infection, REinfection). Again, that's coming from the same KY study.

You are stupid and were fooled by the misleading CDC headline. Once it was explained to you that the CDC study didn't actually compare natural vs. vax immunity, you were again too stupid to realize that your data was just a collection of articles referencing that same exact CDC study.

All you can do is screech about "good enough for peer review." You don't have the capacity or willingness to look at data and interpret it for yourself. You'll continue to smugly parrot whatever tripe the media throws out.

Again, you're an absolute ****ing clown. I'm not going to post anymore in this thread.

Relax Keron Williams. The pre-printed (not peer reviewed) paper from Israel among others (haven't seen any peer reviewed) state that natural immunity for those previously infected provides better protection than the vaccine alone, so there are studies that support your claim. There are a number of papers that say the opposite as well. However, that same Israel study cautioned that it shouldn't matter, because you shouldn't risk infection to get immunity when there is a better option. Other studies are also showing that infection after vaccine is less likely to cause death OR co-morbidities that are common with Covid.

We know that the vaccine provides even better protection for those that were previously infected, and we don't know how long natural immunity will last as these studies are fairly short, so a vaccine makes a lot of sense.

The other thing that "healthy" people don't realize, is that all of the media focused statistics touch on death rates, and most deaths include people with other health issues (other health issues could be anything, slightly overweight, high blood pressure, cholesterol, etc., doesn't mean you were not fairly healthy btw) but does not discuss morbidity. If you had first hand knowledge of the number of "healthy" people that are fairly young that have major side effects from Covid, you might change your tune. My wife has treated a number of very healthy patients, that have had strokes, been on ventilators, or simply dealing with long-Covid. One is aphasic from a stroke, and another Covid related stroke patient cannot walk (no idea how they have progressed after getting discharged).

While HIPAA prevents her from telling me a lot of details, and as I have stated in other threads, she has had two patients in the 30s, that were otherwise healthy, have strokes that were Covid related. A simple search for Covid and stroke risk will give you a lot of information due to Covid's clotting factors, which those types of risks are not stressed by the media, simply deaths. She also has a male patient, early 40s, otherwise completely healthy prior to Covid, that has been on a ventilator for over 40 days. For those that don't know, when you go on a ventilator, odds are, you aren't getting off of it. It would be a horrible, suffering death. Even if he lives, the devastation for being on a ventilator will require a long-term, miserable recovery.

TLDR:
1. Deron is being a Keron
2. It doesn't matter if natural immunity is better, as the vaccine provides more protection for someone that hasn't had Covid, and it provides more protection if you have had Covid. Honestly, what is the argument?
3. Don't just focus on death rates, look at the morbidity.

 

[Rubashov]

Since this has just devolved into another vaccination back and forth, I'm moving it.

I think two of these keyboard gladiators should actually fight it out in a ring. Armed with hammers, the winner gets to have the covid