COVID Round 2

[ckDOG]

Agree with every bit of that.

I was hoping that the anti-vax crowd would fizzle out during Delta, but they dug in. In summer 2020 I could understand, not that many were sick. Even into the spring I could get it, because the vax was still 'new'. But by fall of 2021, if you hadn't been convinced by then that you'd eventually get it, and that the vax would protect you, you weren't convince-able. So, by proxy, we've essentially voted to go for the long-term plan, which is a mix of vaccinated and natural antibodies. I mean these people are giving up their jobs for this.

I'm no coronabro. I hate masks. I didn't tell anybody what they should do. But the vaccines were just common sense. I don't understand dying on the hill. It's so minor, and as your graph shows, it keeps you out of the hospital.

But unfortunately, all these clowns 'know a person' who was vaccinated and got sick, so they ignore the general truth.

It's been an eye opening experience with human nature. Like you, I understand initial skepticism (at least I do now that I'm less emotional about all this as opposed to 2 years ago - I likely lost my patience a time or two early on). But I do get the hesitation to something new and had to do a lot of reading myself to get comfortable with it.

At this point we are in the many billions of doses administered - likely 10 billion. Not suggesting there are no risks, but we are well past the point where the cost/benefit on an individual basis points to taking the vaccine (ignoring rare exceptions your doc would know about). Even if you were worried about long-term impacts, 1) 10 billion doses should speed up any possible negative event to where it should be statistically observable and 2) vaccines are processed out of your body pretty quickly (weeks to months). They aren't designed meant to linger. They stimulate the immune response and degrade. But none of this influences the "no vaccine" population. Heels are dug in and the only things that are stated in support for it at this point are based on arrogance (I don't need this for the sniffles, I'm healthy!) or based on lies or out of context info (see VAERS database). You can only lead a horse to water, I suppose....

 

[Arnold Babar.sixpack]

I got the vax reluctantly before Thanksgiving because we were visiting relatives. I haven't been sick in five years and no covid. Got it over Christmas (tested positive). Had one symptom. Would get a fever around 3-5am every morning. Sweat the bed out take a shower and be completely fine the rest of the day and night. No fever or fatigue. Little congestion. That went on for 6 days. I've had the flu and colds before that were 5 times as bad. Very weird.

 

[BoomBoom.sixpack]

That's not how it works. Variants get less deadly but more transmissible because the virus is simply trying to stay alive. To get more deadly (per capita) it'll have to be a totally new disease, not a variant of COVID-19. It eventually becomes endemic when enough people have antibodies (through vaccine or natural, those who didn't die). This is basic stuff.

That's true....in general. But rare events do happen. As they say, that's why they play the game.

 

[ckDOG]

Ah. Likely true, but to what extent?

I guess I phrased that poorly, but I know a positive PCR tests mean that the virus was present in the person being tested (at least absent contamination), but my understanding is the viral load a person is initially exposed to has to reach a critical mass to result in an infection. If you're exposed to literally one virion, that's unlikely to result in multiplication in sufficient numbers to cause an infection before your body clears it. So is there a number of virion that is high enough to replicate enough to show up on a pcr test as a positive, but low enough that your body is able to clear it without needing a robust enough immune response to generate any virus specific antibodies or memory t cells that produce long lasting immunity.

I'll ask. My suspicion is that that it would have to be a possibility, maybe even more than rare, but in the vast majority of cases that if there was enough virus present to get picked up on the swab, then there would be enough to stimulate an immune response to it. That being a possibility could very well be a partial explanation for the explosion in cases. Still a lot of folks in the hospital though so unlikely there's a ton of noise there.

What's wild to me is such a wide range in immune responses. I get the comorbidity/age influence. But the part where similar demographics of healthy people have wildly different experiences. I want to know what drives that. How much virus you are exposed to? Blood type? Genetics? Random?

ETA: Got the response. This is the layman's explanation since I'm not a lab person. As simply as I can state it, a PCR test is performed based on a number of repeated cycles on a specimen. There are fluorescence markers that help the lab spot when virus is detected. In a high load, this might take a couple of cycles. In a low load, it may take hundreds. The tests are designed to turn off after a number of cycles to filter out some of that noise you are concerned about. The problem is that with infectious disease (and especially with something this new) is that it's difficult to determine what is an appropriate threshold. Some people are asking for the number of cycles to supplement the positive/negative results. In theory, it's something the labs can provide and could influence treatment decisions, but there is so little understanding in what the consequence of a high cycle/lower load vs lower cycle/higher load actually are in context of Covid. This is an approach often taken in the oncology world where there is much more certainty on how much of something makes a difference, but this is developed after decades of research and test development.

This actually makes sense to me thinking back in the early stages of all this. She was involved in "testing the tests" before rollout. There's actually a 3rd result you can get - "indeterminant". She got that and then was retested, along with myself, bc it was a possibility she was positive. I tested negative and she tested indeterminant again. Basically, that result means that the test did find some of the virus, but the number of cycles run to finally get there was so high that that the microbiologists weren't comfortable with calling it a positive. Confusing, right? So rather than confuse the general public, they've judgmentally set the cycle threshold high enough to filter out stuff that are comfortable saying is inconsequential and concluding "negative" even if there is a miniscule amount of virus hanging out in the sample.

So my take? They are considering it and have a reliable way of filtering out the noise. Is it too conservative at this point? TBD.

 

[gwadSIG]

I was hoping that the anti-vax crowd would fizzle out during Delta, but they dug in. In summer 2020 I could understand, not that many were sick. Even into the spring I could get it, because the vax was still 'new'. But by fall of 2021, if you hadn't been convinced by then that you'd eventually get it, and that the vax would protect you, you weren't convince-able. So, by proxy, we've essentially voted to go for the long-term plan, which is a mix of vaccinated and natural antibodies. I mean these people are giving up their jobs for this.

I'm no coronabro. I hate masks. I didn't tell anybody what they should do. But the vaccines were just common sense. I don't understand dying on the hill. It's so minor, and as your graph shows, it keeps you out of the hospital.

But unfortunately, all these clowns 'know a person' who was vaccinated and got sick, so they ignore the general truth.

We prefer pure bloods but whatever makes you feel better about your vaccine regret. What if these so called "anti-vaxers" are waiting for a fully approved vaccine or the choice to take an alternative like Novavax? Shouldn't they have the right to wait to make their own medical decisions? Obviously you detest the unvaccinated, so why do care if they take it or not?

 

[Bill Shankly]

That's not how it works. Variants get less deadly but more transmissible because the virus is simply trying to stay alive. To get more deadly (per capita) it'll have to be a totally new disease, not a variant of COVID-19. It eventually becomes endemic when enough people have antibodies (through vaccine or natural, those who didn't die). This is basic stuff, man.

Therapeutics are already in place. The monoclonal antibodies, hydrochoriquine ****, even ivermection (human doses by doc orders), along with NyQuil and every other OTC medicine, is all there.

Viruses do NOT always become less deadly. That is a myth. Some do, some don't. See the flu for the basic easy to find and understand example. Good grief how that one EVER gained traction is beyond me. "Endemic" is another new buzz word. All it means is that the disease is always with us. That can be a BAD thing, see malaria in the tropics, among a host of others. The "therapeutics" (that word is ALWAYS a clue now) don't work for omicron, with the exception of SOME of the least available, for now, monoclonals. The OTC stuff relieves mild symptoms. It doesn't TREAT anything. Now there are some new "therapeutics" that you didn't mention that DO work, the new antivirals, but they are in very short supply for now. You don't have a CLUE what you are talking about, unless you forgot the ****

 

[PooPopsBaldHead]

I got the vax reluctantly before Thanksgiving because we were visiting relatives. I haven't been sick in five years and no covid. Got it over Christmas (tested positive). Had one symptom. Would get a fever around 3-5am every morning. Sweat the bed out take a shower and be completely fine the rest of the day and night. No fever or fatigue. Little congestion. That went on for 6 days. I've had the flu and colds before that were 5 times as bad. Very weird.

It's almost like your immune system recognized the virus and defeated it with very little effort and mild symptoms. Just like 9 out of 10 people who have previously been infected or were vaccinated. Very weird indeed.***

https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/public-health/what-doctors-wish-patients-knew-about-breakthrough-covid-infections

 

[BoomBoom.sixpack]

I'll ask. My suspicion is that that it would have to be a possibility, maybe even more than rare, but in the vast majority of cases that if there was enough virus present to get picked up on the swab, then there would be enough to stimulate an immune response to it. That being a possibility could very well be a partial explanation for the explosion in cases. Still a lot of folks in the hospital though so unlikely there's a ton of noise there.

What's wild to me is such a wide range in immune responses. I get the comorbidity/age influence. But the part where similar demographics of healthy people have wildly different experiences. I want to know what drives that. How much virus you are exposed to? Blood type? Genetics? Random?

Definitely genetics plays a role. Supposedly immune systems vary as much as any other trait does. I've heard that sexual attraction is in large part based on immune system genetics. That we are subconsciously driven to mate with those whose genes will combine with ours to produce the best immune system. Unknown how much environment/history plays into it. Does 1 genetic twin have a bad response, but the other a good one due to a long past infection? Unknown, but probably.

It's definitely not random, just things we don't know about yet. I posit that the immune system goes thru cycles, and if you get an infection at the low point of your cycle then you will be worse off. Just a guess.

Do we get stronger immune system responses/antibodies from more severe infections? Iow, do those that had severe covid develop better/more antibodies?

 

[SirBarksalot]

2014825[/URL]]Invest in a neti pot.

I’ve used one over the years…until I read about someone that got a brain necrotizing amoeba or some crazy ****…from tap water.

ed: found it.
https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20181210/brain-eating-amoeba-tied-to-tap-water-in-neti-pot

 

[BoomBoom.sixpack]

We prefer pure bloods but whatever makes you feel better about your vaccine regret. What if these so called "anti-vaxers" are waiting for a fully approved vaccine or the choice to take an alternative like Novavax? Shouldn't they have the right to wait to make their own medical decisions? Obviously you detest the unvaccinated, so why do care if they take it or not?

Fair question. Historical answer is your rights end where mine begin. Want to live on your own land and be unvaxed? Roe v Wade gives you that right (for now....). Want to go in public and cough covid all over me? Not necessarily your "right". Akin to reckless driving. Do it all you want on your land, but get on the public road and do it and your rights aren't at play, because you're endangering others now instead of just yourself. Not sure when personal liberty became the idea that individuals get to endanger others however they want....

 

[AlCoDog]

Question. It seems obvious that being vaccinated does not prevent one from spreading it, so at this point you get vaccinated to protect yourself, right?

 

[Smoked Toag]

Viruses do NOT always become less deadly. That is a myth. Some do, some don't. See the flu for the basic easy to find and understand example. Good grief how that one EVER gained traction is beyond me. "Endemic" is another new buzz word. All it means is that the disease is always with us. That can be a BAD thing, see malaria in the tropics, among a host of others. The "therapeutics" (that word is ALWAYS a clue now) don't work for omicron, with the exception of SOME of the least available, for now, monoclonals. The OTC stuff relieves mild symptoms. It doesn't TREAT anything. Now there are some new "therapeutics" that you didn't mention that DO work, the new antivirals, but they are in very short supply for now. You don't have a CLUE what you are talking about, unless you forgot the ****

#coronabro1. No one listens to you anymore (they never really did, we just sort of 'tolerated' your selfish *** mainly because you never STFU).

 

[johnson86-1]

I was hoping that the anti-vax crowd would fizzle out during Delta, but they dug in. In summer 2020 I could understand, not that many were sick. Even into the spring I could get it, because the vax was still 'new'. But by fall of 2021, if you hadn't been convinced by then that you'd eventually get it, and that the vax would protect you, you weren't convince-able. So, by proxy, we've essentially voted to go for the long-term plan, which is a mix of vaccinated and natural antibodies. I mean these people are giving up their jobs for this.

I'm no coronabro. I hate masks. I didn't tell anybody what they should do. But the vaccines were just common sense. I don't understand dying on the hill. It's so minor, and as your graph shows, it keeps you out of the hospital.

But unfortunately, all these clowns 'know a person' who was vaccinated and got sick, so they ignore the general truth.

People aren't good at risk management even when they have good information. I can't fault anybody for whatever decision they have made now when they don't have good info, at least if they are not old or unhealthy.

How do you assign a likelihood to unknown side effects of a vaccine and compare that to say a 1 in a thousand chance of dying from covid? One in a thousand is actually a really high likelihood of death compared to most things and its incremental risk, but it's still hard to conceptualize for most people. If you've had and recovered from COVID, how do you compare the unknown risks of a vaccine versus an unknown risk of a second case of COVID? Do you change your assumptions if you were asymptomatic to account for the possibility of a false positive? How do you account for the fact that basically every institution you would like to be able to trust has shown itself to be different variations of unrealiable to political to corrupt?

You see reasonably intelligent people get suckered by misinformation all the time. Yesterday a poster I'm pretty sure is reasonably intelligent claimed you are more than 27 times more likely to be hospitalized or die from omicron if you're not vaccinated (I don't know what the right number is, but I know that is obviously wrong based on the little data I have access to; I think that was probably the right number or close to it before Delta came along). And a lot of people are not reasonably intelligent and are left without reliable institutions and are doing the best they can. I would blame all the people that burned the institutional credibility we had prior to this before I blamed those people.

 

[Smoked Toag]

We prefer pure bloods but whatever makes you feel better about your vaccine regret. What if these so called "anti-vaxers" are waiting for a fully approved vaccine or the choice to take an alternative like Novavax? Shouldn't they have the right to wait to make their own medical decisions? Obviously you detest the unvaccinated, so why do care if they take it or not?

No regrets, I'm 100% happy that I didn't get Delta and that Omicron was very mild. Don't get big mad and start making stuff up.

I definitely don't hate you either. But you made your own bed, so lay in it.

 

[Smoked Toag]

Question. It seems obvious that being vaccinated does not prevent one from spreading it, so at this point you get vaccinated to protect yourself, right?

If your symptoms are lessened, your time that you are contagious is less. Common sense. The vax helps with all aspects of it.

 

[Bill Shankly]

#coronabro1. No one listens to you anymore (they never really did, we just sort of 'tolerated' your selfish *** mainly because you never STFU).

I figured that was how you would respond. Care to actually address what I said?

 

[Bill Shankly]

If your symptoms are lessened, your time that you are contagious is less. Common sense. The vax helps with all aspects of it.

Correct.

 

[tbaydog]

Most people that are sick are home, not out coughing all over you!

 

[johnson86-1]

I'll ask. My suspicion is that that it would have to be a possibility, maybe even more than rare, but in the vast majority of cases that if there was enough virus present to get picked up on the swab, then there would be enough to stimulate an immune response to it. That being a possibility could very well be a partial explanation for the explosion in cases. Still a lot of folks in the hospital though so unlikely there's a ton of noise there.

What's wild to me is such a wide range in immune responses. I get the comorbidity/age influence. But the part where similar demographics of healthy people have wildly different experiences. I want to know what drives that. How much virus you are exposed to? Blood type? Genetics? Random?

ETA: Got the response. This is the layman's explanation since I'm not a lab person. As simply as I can state it, a PCR test is performed based on a number of repeated cycles on a specimen. There are fluorescence markers that help the lab spot when virus is detected. In a high load, this might take a couple of cycles. In a low load, it may take hundreds. The tests are designed to turn off after a number of cycles to filter out some of that noise you are concerned about. The problem is that with infectious disease (and especially with something this new) is that it's difficult to determine what is an appropriate threshold. Some people are asking for the number of cycles to supplement the positive/negative results. In theory, it's something the labs can provide and could influence treatment decisions, but there is so little understanding in what the consequence of a high cycle/lower load vs lower cycle/higher load actually are in context of Covid. This is an approach often taken in the oncology world where there is much more certainty on how much of something makes a difference, but this is developed after decades of research and test development.

This actually makes sense to me thinking back in the early stages of all this. She was involved in "testing the tests" before rollout. There's actually a 3rd result you can get - "indeterminant". She got that and then was retested, along with myself, bc it was a possibility she was positive. I tested negative and she tested indeterminant again. Basically, that result means that the test did find some of the virus, but the number of cycles run to finally get there was so high that that the microbiologists weren't comfortable with calling it a positive. Confusing, right? So rather than confuse the general public, they've judgmentally set the cycle threshold high enough to filter out stuff that are comfortable saying is inconsequential and concluding "negative" even if there is a miniscule amount of virus hanging out in the sample.

So my take? They are considering it and have a reliable way of filtering out the noise. Is it too conservative at this point? TBD.

All of that is consistent with my understanding of the issue (to the extent you can call it understanding), I just have a bad feeling about all the positive cases with zero symptoms. I think people with no symptoms and high CT values should have been given more indeterminant results. Basically, isolate as if you have covid, but don't act as if you have had an infection and/or have immunity.

 

[Bill Shankly]

I wish the focus in US would switch to therapeutics instead of Vaccine. If things continue they won’t be able to stay ahead of the variants with vaccines. We need therapeutics in place and ready if a very deadly variant comes along.

This vaccine was always going to be like the flu vaccine, if you want to stay current you will have to take one every so often. That is not unusual for vaccines really. Ther are a number that you have to take at regular intervals to stay current.

 

[johnson86-1]

Viruses do NOT always become less deadly. That is a myth. Some do, some don't. See the flu for the basic easy to find and understand example. Good grief how that one EVER gained traction is beyond me. "Endemic" is another new buzz word. All it means is that the disease is always with us. That can be a BAD thing, see malaria in the tropics, among a host of others. The "therapeutics" (that word is ALWAYS a clue now) don't work for omicron, with the exception of SOME of the least available, for now, monoclonals. The OTC stuff relieves mild symptoms. It doesn't TREAT anything. Now there are some new "therapeutics" that you didn't mention that DO work, the new antivirals, but they are in very short supply for now. You don't have a CLUE what you are talking about, unless you forgot the ****

Because it is roughly truish over time. Viruses that make their hosts less sick tend to be more successful at spreading, and if they're closely related, tend to give some protection against more severe variants of the same virus, hence the tendency to get more contagious and less virulent. But obviously we have better and worse flu seasons all the time because in the short term, there is nothing stopping a strain from evolving into something worse, and sometimes, you can get really unlucky, like when a virus adapted for an animal like a bird makes a big enough change that happens to make it infections to humans, or when dumbass bureaucrats fund gain of function research in developing countries with lax safety and they inadvertently release a plague upon the world.

 

[Smoked Toag]

I figured that was how you would respond. Care to actually address what I said?

Your crap isn't true, how else can I respond? All you do is yap, you don't understand anything, all you do is take a hard stance and never see the forest for the trees. The severity of this freaking thing has already lessened significantly from the OG to Omicron, it can't be argued. You really just used the flu as an example? We have the flu every year, of course that's how we want COVID to end up - as a minor inconvenience during the winter. Every one of those drugs I listed helps treat the damn disease. You can't totally prevent it, just like the flu. All depends on if you come across it or not.

Seriously, stop making things black and white like it's me vs. you. That's what a simpleton does. You're sitting over here making rules based on the exceptions ("virus don't ALWAYS become less deadly"), well yeah, they generally do, enough to where we have reasonable assumption that this one will (because it has already).

Now GTFO.

 

[Bill Shankly]

Bottom line this is where we want to go...

Denmark to End Most COVID Restrictions and 'Welcome the Life We Knew Before' (newsweek.com)

The key isn't caseloads anymore. The key is hospital numbers and deaths. If we had a higher vaxx rate I think we would probably be there or very close to it. As it is we are still packing out the hospitals in the US.

 

[PooPopsBaldHead]

Serious question here:

My big question is about any man over the age of 50 (or younger in some cases) that's not vaccinated yet, but has had a digital rectal exam.

How is it you can have a conversation with a doctor about prostate cancer and let him stick his finger up your ***, but when you have a conversation about Covid you ignore his advice to get a vaccine?

 

[Bill Shankly]

Your crap isn't true, how else can I respond? All you do is yap, you don't understand anything, all you do is take a hard stance and never see the forest for the trees. The severity of this freaking thing has already lessened significantly from the OG to Omicron, it can't be argued. You really just used the flu as an example? We have the flu every year, of course that's how we want COVID to end up - as a minor inconvenience during the winter. Every one of those drugs I listed helps treat the damn disease. You can't totally prevent it, just like the flu. All depends on if you come across it or not.

Seriously, stop making things black and white like it's me vs. you. That's what a simpleton does. You're sitting over here making rules based on the exceptions ("virus don't ALWAYS become less deadly"), well yeah, they generally do, enough to where we have reasonable assumption that this one will (because it has already).

Now GTFO.

I used the flu as an example of a virus that doesn't always get less deadly. It's the text book case. It goes BOTH ways over time and always will. NONE of those drugs, with the exception of SOME of the monoclonals, treat the current strain. Some of them don't treat any of them. The science is there. I agreed with you on another post in this thread by the way. I look at what you say, not who you are.

Added: Delta was deadlier than the previous versions of COVID. This one already has become more deadly at least once, probably twice. In fact, the current one just might be the first time it has gone the other way.

 

[AlCoDog]

Did you watch Aziz Ansari’s new stand up on Netflix?

 

[AlCoDog]

Or don’t go out around people if you have symptoms. Common sense and all.

 

[Bill Shankly]

Because it is roughly truish over time. Viruses that make their hosts less sick tend to be more successful at spreading, and if they're closely related, tend to give some protection against more severe variants of the same virus, hence the tendency to get more contagious and less virulent. But obviously we have better and worse flu seasons all the time because in the short term, there is nothing stopping a strain from evolving into something worse, and sometimes, you can get really unlucky, like when a virus adapted for an animal like a bird makes a big enough change that happens to make it infections to humans, or when dumbass bureaucrats fund gain of function research in developing countries with lax safety and they inadvertently release a plague upon the world.

Roughly truish is probably a good way to describe it. I'll have to use that one. Ebola has gone the other way before according to something I read. And as pointed out, the flu does it regularly. So have many other viral and bacterial diseases.

 

[johnson86-1]

Serious question here:

My big question is about any man over the age of 50 (or younger in some cases) that's not vaccinated yet, but has had a digital rectal exam.

How is it you can have a conversation with a doctor about prostate cancer and let him stick his finger up your ***, but when you have a conversation about Covid you ignore his advice to get a vaccine?

My doctor is a her. Not good looking, but good looking enough for me to enjoy her sticking her finger up my ***. Her sticking a needle in me still wouldn't be fun.**

It seems like you of all people on here would relate to that.

 

[PooPopsBaldHead]

I have not. Did that little **** steal my joke?**"

https://forums.sixpackspeak.com/showthread.php?232888-Berkeley-vs-USC-postponed-Details-in-the-tweet%85/page4&p=1984317&highlight=Prostate#post1984317

View attachment 23714

 

[AlCoDog]

He did! He covered it up using Ice Cube in it, but he sure as **** stole it!

 

[johnson86-1]

I’ve used one over the years…until I read about someone that got a brain necrotizing amoeba or some crazy ****…from tap water.

ed: found it.
https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20181210/brain-eating-amoeba-tied-to-tap-water-in-neti-pot

They were never supposed to use tap water. But that is why I rarely use it. The trouble of getting water I am sure if ok is a pain. Easy enough to make sure there are no amoeba, but still hard to get water transferred into it with no bacteria.

 

[PooPopsBaldHead]

Well Johnson, I didn't know you like to party too...

You do bring up a good point though, I have not actually had a digital rectal exam yet. Under 50 with no family history of prostate cancer... I usually pay handsomely for something I could be getting for free by pencil whipping my medical history form.

Thanks for the heads up!

 

[PooPopsBaldHead]

Aziz and Cohen's be reading the Pack.

 

[BoomBoom.sixpack]

People aren't good at risk management even when they have good information. I can't fault anybody for whatever decision they have made now when they don't have good info, at least if they are not old or unhealthy.

How do you assign a likelihood to unknown side effects of a vaccine and compare that to say a 1 in a thousand chance of dying from covid? One in a thousand is actually a really high likelihood of death compared to most things and its incremental risk, but it's still hard to conceptualize for most people. If you've had and recovered from COVID, how do you compare the unknown risks of a vaccine versus an unknown risk of a second case of COVID? Do you change your assumptions if you were asymptomatic to account for the possibility of a false positive? How do you account for the fact that basically every institution you would like to be able to trust has shown itself to be different variations of unrealiable to political to corrupt?

You see reasonably intelligent people get suckered by misinformation all the time. Yesterday a poster I'm pretty sure is reasonably intelligent claimed you are more than 27 times more likely to be hospitalized or die from omicron if you're not vaccinated (I don't know what the right number is, but I know that is obviously wrong based on the little data I have access to; I think that was probably the right number or close to it before Delta came along). And a lot of people are not reasonably intelligent and are left without reliable institutions and are doing the best they can. I would blame all the people that burned the institutional credibility we had prior to this before I blamed those people.

I think your last sentence is a good example of your first sentence.

 

[Cooterpoot]

Serious question here:

My big question is about any man over the age of 50 (or younger in some cases) that's not vaccinated yet, but has had a digital rectal exam.

How is it you can have a conversation with a doctor about prostate cancer and let him stick his finger up your ***, but when you have a conversation about Covid you ignore his advice to get a vaccine?

They like the jelly finger

 

[operch]

As far as I know they still have not done away with, gain of function, maybe they will turn something else loose we can argue about.

 

[bulldoghair]

If you’re referring to me, I did get 5 down votes so I don’t know what that means. Seriously, I don’t understand it.

Now have 9 down votes. This is crazy and confusing to me as to why people would down vote my added very personal experience to the conversation. Will anyone who down voted please explain or let me know the reason you down voted. I am honestly and genuinely curious, because I don’t understand and I’d like to at least know where people are coming from. Thank you.

 

[operch]

Winter Olympics are coming up.

 

[mstateglfr]

We prefer pure bloods but whatever makes you feel better about your vaccine regret. What if these so called "anti-vaxers" are waiting for a fully approved vaccine or the choice to take an alternative like Novavax? Shouldn't they have the right to wait to make their own medical decisions? Obviously you detest the unvaccinated, so why do care if they take it or not?

So you have no vaccines in you? Like never been vaccinated before?