- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Friend just dies from the vaccine
Posted on 4/28/21 at 11:47 pm to AbuTheMonkey
Posted on 4/28/21 at 11:47 pm to AbuTheMonkey
You're an unhinged phag . Just an observation.
0
Posted on 4/28/21 at 11:47 pm to AmosMosesAndTwins
quote:
It’s widely accepted that duration of immunity is unknown, pertaining to virus and vaccine. No data to support vaccine complications at levels greater than natural occurrence. It’s like your running special teams with thigh pads but no helmet.
That's hardly a compelling scientific argument for a person not at risk, who has had the virus already and carries natural immunity - to get vaccinated.
Another question - let's say I get it again. What does the science say - will it be tougher than the first go with the virus, or will it be easier?
Posted on 4/28/21 at 11:51 pm to MrFizzle
quote:
I bet your friend was on fentanyl before they took the vaccine and that’s what killed them. They happened to take the vaccine at the same time but they were prob goin die of drug use.
Kinda like majority of the people that died from covid actually died from some other health concern....
Posted on 4/28/21 at 11:57 pm to David_DJS
quote:
That's hardly a compelling scientific argument for a person not at risk, who has had the virus already and carries natural immunity - to get vaccinated.
Granted, but I think you’d agree that vaccination, even if you deem redundant, has higher likelihood of impacting transmission rates positively than opting not to vaccinate. It’s like cell phone coverage. You’re T-Mobile. Be AT&T, man.
quote:
Another question - let's say I get it again. What does the science say - will it be tougher than the first go with the virus, or will it be easier?
Let’s hope these occurrences remain rare, but, probably impossible to definitively say one way or the other. On one hand, your body has equipped itself, meaning lessened severity. On the other hand, long-term internal effects from the first infection could exacerbate the symptoms during second infection, JMHO.
You guys have been trying to live in a land of absolutes, black and white, for the past year. The answers, solutions, and tolerance limitations of GP just aren’t that clear cut.
Posted on 4/28/21 at 11:58 pm to NashvilleTider
I got both of mine and I'm just fine.
Posted on 4/29/21 at 12:01 am to Numberwang
quote:
If the flu vax was expiremental and also killing people, I'd for sure skip it.
I had Covid. I've had way worse allergies.
You're a herd animal.
You’re calling me a sheep, when you’ve taken anti-vax stance with no scientific merit to back it, purely relying on conjecture of ignorants. Think about that for a second and come beh-eh-eh-ehk if the lightbulb doesn’t come on.
Posted on 4/29/21 at 12:03 am to AbuTheMonkey
quote:
Abu
I’m sure you love the new DBT content. You used to be one of my favorite posters- logical, balanced, and free-thinking. I sincerely hope you’re doing well, take care man
Posted on 4/29/21 at 12:10 am to AmosMosesAndTwins
quote:
your body has equipped itself, meaning lessened severity
The irony
Posted on 4/29/21 at 12:14 am to Ted2010
Ted, soon, you will be something out of a zombie movie.
Posted on 4/29/21 at 12:17 am to AmosMosesAndTwins
quote:
Granted, but I think you’d agree that vaccination, even if you deem redundant, has higher likelihood of impacting transmission rates positively than opting not to vaccinate. It’s like cell phone coverage. You’re T-Mobile. Be AT&T, man.
If I was concerned about the virus or was in the sphere of someone I was concerned for, I'd probably get the virus. But I'm not. And to be clear, my perspective is that this whole thing is way, way overblown, so we may have a different idea of who's really at risk and who's not.
Got a question for you, and I'm asking it because I've seen nearly nothing on it, and to me we should all know the answer.
If we counted flu deaths from the last bad flu season (I think '17/'18) the way we have counted COVID deaths, how many flu deaths would we have registered over that six month flu season?
quote:
On the other hand, long-term internal effects from the first infection could exacerbate the symptoms during second infection, JMHO.
I can appreciate what you're suggesting here, but aren't there similar concerns about the vaccines?
quote:
You guys have been trying to live in a land of absolutes, black and white, for the past year.
I see it differently. That I'm skeptical of people who've been very wrong, very often, and at least appear to have political motivations doesn't mean I need black and white. It means I don't trust the people that are front/center in championing the "response to COVID."
Take a moment and think about your comment from the perspective of someone that thinks differently than you do. Not a paranoid moron (they're on both sides of this COVID/MASK/VACCINES debate), but someone that has actually put some serious thought into these matters and came away with different opinions than you have.
This post was edited on 4/29/21 at 12:20 am
Posted on 4/29/21 at 12:22 am to AmosMosesAndTwins
You're fricking stupid. You have no retort. Go watch a few episodes of Maddow to download your talking points, bitch-boy.
You aren't capable of having a conversation otherwise.
You aren't capable of having a conversation otherwise.
Posted on 4/29/21 at 12:23 am to AmosMosesAndTwins
quote:
You’re calling me a sheep, when you’ve taken anti-vax stance with no scientific merit to back it,
No scientific merit to back my stance?
You dumb motherfricker. I've HAD COVID. I have also donated blood three times since I HAD COVID and each time I tested positive for the antibodies.
You're a fricking sheep and a pussy.
You're literally demanding I get a vax for a disease I have not only recovered from, but have tested positive for antibodies for multiple times.
You don't have a science leg to stand on frickwit.
This post was edited on 4/29/21 at 12:26 am
Posted on 4/29/21 at 12:25 am to SirWinston
quote:
Im holding out as long as I can, fellow Patriot
Are the real Sir Winston? Since you just said you are holding out? Is there something you hate about the drug company?
This post was edited on 4/29/21 at 12:26 am
Posted on 4/29/21 at 12:28 am to NashvilleTider
COVID
Vaccine
One's a virus that kills between 1-2% of those who get it, and unfortunately the 98-99% who easily shrug it off still consistently pass it on to those less equipped to do the same. In survivors it also unfortunately presents statistically significant increases to a number of intermediate/long-term conditions.
One's a deterrent against said virus that kills less than 0.0031% that get two doses, and that's with those "deaths" front-loaded by those more inclined to have gotten the vaccine early (the chronically sick or elderly). Now late in its distribution game, we are still waiting for anywhere near the magnitude (relative or absolute) of intermediate-term health issues to arise with it. Rounding error crickets thus far.
Support for one is supported by safety data (both mortality and morbidity) at such a superior magnitude to the other that you can adjust for any degree of statistical data frickery (however likely it may be) and it still blows the doors off of the latter.
Avoidance of the same one in most cases - as exhibited by the latter half of this thread - is predominantly supported by fee-fees. (Not putting COVID survivors in the fee-fee bucket when they don't have any utility in getting vaccinated)
It's sad to see certain denizens 180 this hard from a year ago. Paranoia is infectious.
Vaccine
One's a virus that kills between 1-2% of those who get it, and unfortunately the 98-99% who easily shrug it off still consistently pass it on to those less equipped to do the same. In survivors it also unfortunately presents statistically significant increases to a number of intermediate/long-term conditions.
One's a deterrent against said virus that kills less than 0.0031% that get two doses, and that's with those "deaths" front-loaded by those more inclined to have gotten the vaccine early (the chronically sick or elderly). Now late in its distribution game, we are still waiting for anywhere near the magnitude (relative or absolute) of intermediate-term health issues to arise with it. Rounding error crickets thus far.
Support for one is supported by safety data (both mortality and morbidity) at such a superior magnitude to the other that you can adjust for any degree of statistical data frickery (however likely it may be) and it still blows the doors off of the latter.
Avoidance of the same one in most cases - as exhibited by the latter half of this thread - is predominantly supported by fee-fees. (Not putting COVID survivors in the fee-fee bucket when they don't have any utility in getting vaccinated)
It's sad to see certain denizens 180 this hard from a year ago. Paranoia is infectious.
This post was edited on 4/29/21 at 12:50 am
Posted on 4/29/21 at 12:28 am to TrueLefty
Some got the measles, chicken pot, Spanish FLU, and many others. Which ones are better to avoid catching?
Posted on 4/29/21 at 12:30 am to David_DJS
quote:
If I was concerned about the virus are was in the sphere of someone I was concerned for, I'd probably get the virus. But I'm not. And to be clear, my perspective is that this whole thing is way, way overblown, so we may have a different idea of who's really at risk and who's not.
Everyone is in everyone’s sphere, hence masks, vaccines, etc.
quote:
Got a question for you, and I'm asking it because I've seen nearly nothing on it, and to me we should all know the answer.
If we counted flu deaths from the last bad flu season (I think '17/'18) the way we have counted COVID deaths, how many flu deaths would we have registered over that six month flu season?
A hell of a lot less than Covid. Covid is not the flu.
quote:
I can appreciate what you're suggesting here, but aren't there similar concerns about the vaccines?
Unfounded, unsupported by scientific data, and pure conjecture, based on several hypotheticals aligning perfectly to yield adverse effect. Kinda the entire point I’m trying to make here.
quote:
Take a moment and think about your comment from the perspective of someone that thinks differently than you do. Not a paranoid moron (they're on both sides of this COVID/MASK/VACCINES debate), but someone that has actually put some serious thought into these matters and came away with different opinions than you have.
I’m actually, as a person, very inclusive of alternative viewpoints. I’m a devil’s advocate, punch holes in every viewpoint until I’m left with what’s most logical. I understand your rights, opinion, etc., I’m just of the opinion that your viewpoint is weak in logic and scientific basis, as I see it. I get you’re making the best decision for you, great, but, what you fail to see is how your decision inherently becomes the decision of everyone, by proxy. You’re mouth breathing morning breath in a crowded room; just take a damn mint and everyone would benefit.
Posted on 4/29/21 at 12:31 am to David_DJS
quote:
Not a paranoid moron (they're on both sides of this COVID/MASK/VACCINES debate), but someone that has actually put some serious thought into these matters
quote:Sorry Broseidon but these lines rationally don't add up. We're nearly 6 months since first vaccines went out. We have more than enough mortality and morbidity data for both COVID and its vaccines to be able to state that that of the latter is rounding error compared to the former.
If I was concerned about the virus or was in the sphere of someone I was concerned for, I'd probably get the virus
The decision to prefer getting COVID over a vaccine is not even risk aversion, it's risk seeking. You're actively making decisions against the clear data with the only thing in your corner being hunch and distrust. Much of that distrust towards stakeholders is not without merit, but there's a point in every conspiracy theorist's life when appropriate skepticism dips into delusion.
This post was edited on 4/29/21 at 12:43 am
Posted on 4/29/21 at 12:32 am to Numberwang
quote:
You don't have a science leg to stand on frickwit.
Well, I haven’t had Covid, so....
Posted on 4/29/21 at 12:54 am to RemouladeSawce
quote:
One's a virus that kills between 1-2% of those who get it,
You identified yourself as ill-informed inside of 20 words.
Nothing close to 1-2% of those that get COVID die.
Posted on 4/29/21 at 12:56 am to David_DJS
quote:By all means big guy, break out the statistical analysis to the contrary. Don't be shy. Get out of the "hunches" and into the data.
You identified yourself as ill-informed inside of 20 words.
Nothing close to 1-2% of those that get COVID die.
For "nothing close" you better be showing CFR's <0.5%. You can argue overall case incidence is understated and be directionally right but if 1-2% isn't "close" you're implying case reporting is underreported by a minimum multiple of 2-3x, which would inherently also entail a magnitude of underreported deaths offseting that metric decrease.
This post was edited on 4/29/21 at 1:19 am
Page 10 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News