COVID-19

[nucci]

Just now, Mike Honcho said:

my mother was a really long hold out. she didnt want to get it, even though she was very high risk (previous cancer) very elder, and not in good health. 

 

she spoke to her doctor, who told her that he was shocked she didnt get it, and said she needed to get it right away. she got it 2 days later, and she is ready to get on with her life. i keep telling her she has 6 weeks to go, she only got her first dose of 2 (Moderna)

i understand that people dont want to get it, and again, that is their choice, but i dont want fear to win out over science when it comes to re-opening.

 

i have all the compassion in the world for people who are nervous. i didnt go out for 1 year, and now that i have the vaccine (fully), i am starting to go out. I still wear a mask (3 masks actually), and i try to stay away from people, but i realize, it can't be like this forever. 

the more people that get the vaccine will allow restrictions to be removed. It's already happening in parts of the country. I'm in Delaware...along with PA and NJ, restrictions are being lifted now

[miles]

5 minutes ago, nucci said:

the more people that get the vaccine will allow restrictions to be removed. It's already happening in parts of the country. I'm in Delaware...along with PA and NJ, restrictions are being lifted now

i just read the stuff being lifted in nj, and its a good start. hopefully the numbers dont spike and they can continue to remove restrictions. 

[JujuFish]

1 hour ago, nfreeman said:

This is a fair response, although you have no idea what "your news exposure" I've had on this point, and that type of comment contributes to the silly, destructive and unnecessary politicization of this issue in this discussion.  (For the record, the mRNA point I made came from reading an article in the Economist, a center-left publication that is far from anti-vax.)

The Economist is a good source, and I never claimed you were anti-vax.  I don't believe I even implied you were vaccine-hesitant, though I may not see how my own words seem rather than the way they were intended.  That said, I used "your news exposure" for the very reason that I *don't* know what it is.  Imagine if I, knowing you're a conservative, had thrown out Fox News by name, or further right wing sources like Breitbart or ONN?  I'm trying to play it neutral.

[nfreeman]

1 hour ago, JujuFish said:

The Economist is a good source, and I never claimed you were anti-vax.  I don't believe I even implied you were vaccine-hesitant, though I may not see how my own words seem rather than the way they were intended.  That said, I used "your news exposure" for the very reason that I *don't* know what it is.  Imagine if I, knowing you're a conservative, had thrown out Fox News by name, or further right wing sources like Breitbart or ONN?  I'm trying to play it neutral.

Well, I appreciate your response, but here's what you said:

Quote

We have more understanding of them than your news exposure wants you to believe,

The unavoidable implication is that my "news exposure" is driven by an agenda, either the publisher's or my own (or both).  So I agree that you didn't imply that I was anti-vax, but I think you did imply something pejorative about my news sources and perhaps about my interest in learning the facts as opposed to consuming/promoting an agenda.

For example, if I had responded to your post with "We have less understanding of these vaccines than your news exposure wants you to believe" -- I would not expect you to respond favorably to that statement, as I have no idea what news sources you consume and how interested you are in facts as opposed to agendas.

I think a better starting place would be an assumption that the person one is conversing with is interested in learning the facts and developing an understanding of a situation.  So if you had simply said something like "We have more understanding of them than you might think" -- that would have been a more collaborative comment that invited further meaningful conversation.

YMMV, of course.  My goal here is simply to promote constructive dialogue in this thread and to discourage antagonism.

[miles]

I tend to believe that most news at this point should be considered entertainment and not based on facts or maybe incomplete facts, or even only complete up to the point that it matches their agenda 

I think that the news does fear mongering and half truth to get ratings. Like the old

"Can this popular toy your kids use everyday seriously injure them? Find out at 11".  Why not say sooner, and risk injury?

Edited May 7, 2021 by Mike Honcho

[LTS]

I, too, understand why people don't want to get the vaccine. I also accept it.

With regards to lifting restrictions the concerns I have at this point is that children 15 and under cannot yet get vaccinated. I'm on our local youth baseball board and it was for that reason alone I was the sole person standing up and saying "we should require masks, 100%".  (Our rule is maintain distance and have a mask on you.) 

I hate masks, always have. If kids were able to be vaccinated today and there was no shortage of vaccine I would be 100% in favor of lifting all restrictions. I am beyond ready to revert to life as it was.

 

[JujuFish]

5 hours ago, nfreeman said:

Well, I appreciate your response, but here's what you said:

The unavoidable implication is that my "news exposure" is driven by an agenda, either the publisher's or my own (or both).  So I agree that you didn't imply that I was anti-vax, but I think you did imply something pejorative about my news sources and perhaps about my interest in learning the facts as opposed to consuming/promoting an agenda.

For example, if I had responded to your post with "We have less understanding of these vaccines than your news exposure wants you to believe" -- I would not expect you to respond favorably to that statement, as I have no idea what news sources you consume and how interested you are in facts as opposed to agendas.

I think a better starting place would be an assumption that the person one is conversing with is interested in learning the facts and developing an understanding of a situation.  So if you had simply said something like "We have more understanding of them than you might think" -- that would have been a more collaborative comment that invited further meaningful conversation.

YMMV, of course.  My goal here is simply to promote constructive dialogue in this thread and to discourage antagonism.

If I thought you had no interest in learning, I would not have bothered to respond to you.  I've gotten more than enough of that from conservative parts of my family.

 

As for my news exposure, when I was making my own decision about vaccination, I did research.  I didn't get my information from the news.  I looked at research papers and studies, and checked what expert opinions on the matter were.  I clearly was making an assumption that you got your information from news sources, which was shortsighted on my part (even though you didn't refute that), but I think based on your discussion of the coronavirus, my statement is still accurate.

 

I've seen plenty of bias about SARS-CoV-2, even from fairly neutral sources.  Just this morning, I was listening to some NPR, and during a topic about the tragedy happening with the virus in India, there was a brief mention of a new mutation.  Instead of using a neutral phrase such as "the deadliness and contagiousness of this new mutation is currently unknown", the words that were said were something along the lines of "scientists are worried this could be more contagious or deadlier", which is certainly a more loaded way of conveying the information.  Was NPR consciously (or subconsciously) trying to spread fear of the virus in hopes of creating a greater vaccination rate?  I honestly don't know.

[Andrew Amerk]

7 hours ago, Mike Honcho said:

I tend to believe that most news at this point should be considered entertainment and not based on facts or maybe incomplete facts, or even only complete up to the point that it matches their agenda 

I think that the news does fear mongering and half truth to get ratings. Like the old

"Can this popular toy your kids use everyday seriously injure them? Find out at 11".  Why not say sooner, and risk injury?

Society is the opposite now. Everyone wants to know everything immediately. People want to be the first to post about it. 

“Don’t get vaccinated! It’s bad for you! I’m the first to say it!” Social media should be considered entertainment and not based on facts or maybe incomplete facts, or even only complete up to the point that it matches their agenda.

[That Aud Smell]

On 5/6/2021 at 6:49 PM, nfreeman said:

You seem to have concluded (before the FDA has) that the vaccine is indeed safe and effective, and, regrettably, that those who have concerns in this regard are either foolish or dishonest.

Leaving aside the snark, why specifically are you so confident?  Certainly it is the case that no one alive has had the vaccine in his/her body for more than 6 months or so.  It’s also worth noting that the Moderna    vaccine (and one other — I think Pfizer but not sure) is based on an entirely new, mRNA-based approach to innoculation.

Does one have to be a charlatan or a dumb redneck to harbor concerns?

The snark is my way of expressing deep dissatisfaction with a society that can’t pull together to defeat a common enemy.

I didn’t say anything about charlatans and rednecks, so I’m not sure where that’s coming from.

Here’s my view of the thing: Our (western) society has become incredibly, overwhelmingly centered around the individual. This finds expression on both sides of the political spectrum. To me, there’s little difference between the whole “hey that’s just cis normative” I am what I identify as and society must be reconfigured to accommodate me and my me-ness, on one hand, and the anti-science (even if only softly so) don’t tread on me approach to the world where everyone seems to be entitled to their own facts, on the other.

The dirty secret to mass vaccination programs is that there will be casualties  and even fatalities. This is a war. In order to win, everyone must be prepared to accept an incredibly small risk of a bad outcome — a risk, btw, that is demonstrably lower - way lower - than having the disease to begin with.

We gotta pull together, or we will die alone.

[Weave]

7 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

The snark is my way of expressing deep dissatisfaction with a society that can’t pull together to defeat a common enemy.

I didn’t say anything about charlatans and rednecks, so I’m not sure where that’s coming from.

Here’s my view of the thing: Our (western) society has become incredibly, overwhelmingly centered around the individual. This finds expression on both sides of the political spectrum. To me, there’s little difference between the whole “hey that’s just cis normative” I am what I identify as and society must be reconfigured to accommodate me and my me-ness, on one hand, and the anti-science (even if only softly so) don’t tread on me approach to the world where everyone seems to be entitled to their own facts, on the other.

The dirty secret to mass vaccination programs is that there will be casualties  and even fatalities. This is a war. In order to win, everyone must be prepared to accept an incredibly small risk of a bad outcome — a risk, btw, that is demonstrably lower - way lower - than having the disease to begin with.

We gotta pull together, or we will die alone.

Very well put.  Better than I would have worded it, for sure.

[Doohicksie]

On 5/6/2021 at 11:33 PM, North Buffalo said:

Interesting idea but I bet a lot of places still keep mask policy in place.

Actually, Texas has pretty much lifted mask mandates on a statewide level.  Some businesses have gone with it, most haven't, and if anything I would say there is higher percentage of people wearing masks than before the mandate was lifted.  I'm vaxxed but I still wear a mask out in public even when not required, mostly out of courtesy.  I know not everyone else is vaxxed, and I know there are some who simply can't be vaxxed even if they wanted to be, and I know that even with my vaccination I have a small chance of being a carrier.  I put the health of those in my community ahead of my personal freedom.

I feel we're pulling out of this but I've also seen that places that thought they were out of the woods have found themselves deep in the forest again.  This is what our county looks like in terms of new cases. 

While it's encouraging, we're still seeing over a hundred new cases every day on average.  We're still seeing 1-2 deaths from Covid every day on average.  This trough following the most recent peak is what the first peak looked like, and even after cases went down from there, we still subsequently exploded.

To me the most discouraging thing are the people who refused to put up with a mild inconvenience because of a perceived attack on their personal freedoms because they really don't care that it could literally kill others in their community.  I am encouraged that so many people have been doing their part voluntarily with the lifting of mandates.

We'll see where it goes.

Edited May 8, 2021 by Doohickie

[Eleven]

25 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

The snark is my way of expressing deep dissatisfaction with a society that can’t pull together to defeat a common enemy.

I didn’t say anything about charlatans and rednecks, so I’m not sure where that’s coming from.

Here’s my view of the thing: Our (western) society has become incredibly, overwhelmingly centered around the individual. This finds expression on both sides of the political spectrum. To me, there’s little difference between the whole “hey that’s just cis normative” I am what I identify as and society must be reconfigured to accommodate me and my me-ness, on one hand, and the anti-science (even if only softly so) don’t tread on me approach to the world where everyone seems to be entitled to their own facts, on the other.

The dirty secret to mass vaccination programs is that there will be casualties  and even fatalities. This is a war. In order to win, everyone must be prepared to accept an incredibly small risk of a bad outcome — a risk, btw, that is demonstrably lower - way lower - than having the disease to begin with.

We gotta pull together, or we will die alone.

 

17 minutes ago, Weave said:

Very well put.  Better than I would have worded it, for sure.

The third paragraph is something I've been thinking about for a long time but just couldn't put together that way.

[Scottysabres]

So, I know this is the covid thread, but I thought y'all would enjoy an antidote in a group of siblings love for there mother. A feel good situation in so far as it can be given the circumstances. Without further ado, here we go.

As many of you know, our family found out recently my mum has stage 4 small cell lung cancer. And while that is a very somber, very bleak diagnosis, and with Kemo treatment already started, we are not a family of followers. My brother, Scott (yes, the reason for my Sabrespace name, he's my life hero) started researching on holistic treatments. My sister (the middle child) and myself (the youngest) joined the battle with our brother leading the charge. Day after day, hour after free hour, researching, reading, phone calls, online chats with bio-medical, cancer field individuals.. In the past 17 days, we have collected quite an array of as before unknown to us small cell cancer information.

As of today, Dandelion tea is now a regular staple in moms stable of daily in take. There is now a 30.7kg (66lb) bag of the Chinese Toona sinenses leaf extract enroute from the far east. We are determined to throw everything including the kitchen sink at this. My mom will not go quietly in to the good night, she will not go without a fight. She's going to live on, because in her 8mage are we kids made, and we're fighters, until our very last breathe.

[miles]

I know the cdc says people who are vaccinated can hang out together with no worries, but yesterday everyone was at my mother in laws, and everyone was wearing a mask except my sister in laws boyfriend. apparently he doesn't take social cues or just refused. This guy is generally a real piece of ***** for other reasons and everyone sees it except my sister in law.

I just stayed on the opposite side of the room from him. F him, such a dick. We have said 1 million times over the last few visits to wear it when you are not eating. 

Edited May 10, 2021 by Mike Honcho

[miles]

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read 

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/ohio-5-people-1-million-005943467.html

[nfreeman]

2 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read 

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/ohio-5-people-1-million-005943467.html

I agree that it shouldn't be needed, but it will probably be pretty effective.

[Scottysabres]

1 minute ago, Mike Honcho said:

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read 

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/ohio-5-people-1-million-005943467.html

So, the Governors brother-in-law's sisters kid, his high school buddies mom's ex, and 3 of his fishing club members will all be contributors to his campaign? Good to know.

[SDS]

17 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read 

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/ohio-5-people-1-million-005943467.html

Persuasion is about persuading the unconvinced, not convincing those who have already have been convinced.

[miles]

17 minutes ago, SDS said:

Persuasion is about persuading the unconvinced, not convincing those who have already have been convinced.

Sure, but the vaccine is made to save lives on a virus that has upended the entire world for over a year. 

The vaccine prevents illness and death and will bring normal life back, that should be enough incentive. 

Edited May 13, 2021 by Mike Honcho

[SDS]

5 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Sure, but the vaccine is made to save lives on a virus that has upended the entire world for over a year. 

The vaccine prevents illness and death and will bring normal life back, that should be enough incentive. 

That persuaded you and me. Those who are left unpersuaded need a different approach.

The "we" people are vaccinated. The "me" people need something different.

[miles]

5 minutes ago, SDS said:

 

The "we" people are vaccinated. The "me" people need something different.

That is a really interesting way to put it. I had never thought of it like that. 

Im just beyond ready for life to go back to normal. Now that i have vaccine im hitting stores again but it still feels different and unsafe to me. Im sure it will just take time

[LabattBlue]

36 minutes ago, SDS said:

The "we" people are vaccinated. The "me" people need something different.

So few words...so very well stated! 👍

[Weave]

Reported in an article published by Axios today:

99.7% of hospitalized coronavirus patients are unvaccinated, the Cleveland Clinic said this week — more real-world evidence that the vaccines prevent the type of serious infections that were killing over 3,000 Americans per day just a few months ago.

 

[LGR4GM]

10 minutes ago, Weave said:

Reported in an article published by Axios today:

99.7% of hospitalized coronavirus patients are unvaccinated, the Cleveland Clinic said this week — more real-world evidence that the vaccines prevent the type of serious infections that were killing over 3,000 Americans per day just a few months ago.

 

Whenever anyone argues vaccine effectiveness I just ask them one simple question... Got Polio?

[Stoner]

1 hour ago, SDS said:

That persuaded you and me. Those who are left unpersuaded need a different approach.

The "we" people are vaccinated. The "me" people need something different.

That would have been a good slogan. Still could be.

WE with a heart around it, ME encircled and struck through.