PASabreFan

Turn on the news. Pfizer is shipping out six million doses in the next several days. That's it. There might be 40 million doses by the end of the year. Hill I'm fighting on? Isn't that a saying reserved for someone who's expressing a lonely, unpopular opinion? You're muddying the waters because you got caught in an indefensible position.

Pfizer will be trying to fulfill a pre-order of 100 million doses, enough for 50 million people. They are paid for. There are none to sell to the Arizona Coyotes. Am I missing something? But I think you're right about how long it's going to take before it's the turn of young, healthy people.

There's no line though. At first, there are just a bunch of people standing shoulder to shoulder, all of them in about equal need. Your argument might be a tiny bit better later on when we're down to people with less risky underlying conditions and supplies of vaccine are larger. Only a tiny bit though. These guys need to wait their turn. You'll win out ultimately, of course, in a country where buddies of people in power get a hospital bed and the good schtuff while sicker people are on their couch trying their luck with Tylenol. I'm not even sure this is worth debating. There will be a season without players getting vaccinated. Actually, what you're proposing is grosser, for lack of a better word: we need Jack to get a vaccine instead of a nursing home resident so he doesn't fall ill on the eve of Game 7.

The definition of selfishness. But not surprising. It's why we're in this mess. How can your enjoyment of watching some dumb jocks whack at a puck mean more than a human life? And at this point it is one for one. If Jack gets a vaccine a nursing home resident or a nurse doesn't. You guys might not even be in the minority. We are a sick culture.

Excess deaths.

At first we're only going to have enough Pfizer vaccines for 50 million people — and the government might not be able to get more vaccines from Pfizer until late spring. The first delivery, enough for only several million people, is imminent. Thankfully, the marketplace will not rule, not yet anyway. I don't see any scenario where vaccines will be available to young, healthy professional athletes. Nor should they be, nor could any such access be morally defensible. The tweet about the NHL's desire to get their folks vaccinated before the season got quickly cleaned up, which is good.

Is it safe to assume the immunity lasts at least c. eight months? We're not hearing about lots of people in NYC/NJ getting re-infected.

Why would the vaccine ever be for sale to non-government entities? Supply will not meet demand in this country this winter and likely worldwide supply will not meet demand for a looooong time. Any purchase of vaccines would be the definition of cutting the line.

Take a bow, @spndnchz.

The gift that keeps on giving.

I wonder if the owners are salivating at the idea of getting their hands on the vaccine right away. For everyone in the game and maybe even the fans. (I don't wonder but wanted to stop short of something declarative.) Trying to get fans vaccinated is probably a non-starter, as it would likely be an enormous scandal. But given how few people balked at hockey players getting tested before nursing home residents and staff, I would suspect there's a line of thought that they should make a play on vaccines for players. Hopefully that will be impossible.

No. And everyone should be, because it's effectiveness we're concerned about. Real-world, not controlled trials. Props for using efficacy correctly. But I suspect the less nuanced doubt at play is whether the vaccines will work at all, will give you Covid, will make Epstein return from the dead and molest everyone, will make everyone crave Betty Crocker products etc.

Come on now. They'll edit the list to put him at 28. Because Click Bait or something. George is gettin' upset! Ullmark is clearly elite.

In this proposal to put thousands of people together in the worst of a pandemic, do you think the owners are motivated by a desire to employ ticket-takers, ushers and concession workers?

But Dom comes OUT packing and hot. Please Uncle Smell, tell the story one more time! Pllleeeeeeeeease.

That's pretty much implied in the quote. I assume you did it to support yourself and your family, if you have one. You didn't, in the process, put lives at risk so you could finish off that sweet superyacht.

The root of all evil, as they say.

That makes sense. But how would you go to the first post (quickly) if you wanted to?

So "Opening new content" refers only to the thread titles, not the latest post time or circles/stars. The wording should be more clear. "When clicking on thread title...

This is a little confusing. If "Take me to the beginning" is the default, does that mean if I click on any link (title of thread, circle or star, link to last post), I go to the beginning? That's apparently not the case, as the board links work the way they always did. Or do I have to hit Save to enact the default preference? And why would anyone always want to go the beginning? I wouldn't blame a light board user for not knowing this, but we've always had the flexibility to go wherever we wanted. The thread title takes you to the beginning, the circle or star takes you to the first unread post and the time since the last post takes you to the latest post. (The circle and star do the same thing; the star indicates you've posted in the thread.) Now someone can tell me I've been doing it wrong for lo these many years.

The Author button seems a bit useless. You're conditioned to want to click on it, and of course it's not linked to anything.

I noticed that the edit feature is harder to find now. I wonder if that was by design (desire to have fewer edited posts). Of course people like me can't be stopped!

Here's a good primer on what x% efficacy means (and we should be saying efficacy, not effective). https://scroll.in/article/979627/a-statistician-explains-what-does-90-efficacy-for-a-covid-19-vaccine-mean The CP article NS posted has a bit of a strawman in it. Of course 95% efficacy doesn't mean 95% of the people who are vaccinated have no chance of getting Covid. Who even claimed that? The scroll.in article above makes a key point. Efficacy so far is only an indication of the vaccine's performance in the short run. If protection wanes, that efficacy could be lower. Which of course could be an argument for waiting to release the vaccine. The article got me to thinking about how interesting it will/would be to see what side effects are observed in the placebo vs. the vaccine group, given the very real mind-body connection.