Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
If I understand correctly. Torres and most of those other Yankees were asymptomatic. If not for being tested daily due to contact tracing, you wouldn't know about these cases. Furthermore, I believe the CDC isn't reporting cases of vax'd people getting covid unless they at least visit the hospital.
They also had the single shot J&J vaccine, not a double dose. So they had a higher likelihood of future infection already due to getting a vaccine with lower efficacy, and despite that most were asymptomatic.
Not sure when all the data will be available, but here's a start:
To restate, among people who previously had been exposed to SARS-CoV-2, there was ~80% protection against recurrent infection. This number dropped to 47% for people over age 65.
Given higher levels of neutralizing antibodies induced by vaccines, I expect those numbers will skew further in favor of vaccines over time.
That's not "my evidence"
You asked if anyone died after a second infection.
In my experience, people ONLY look for 100% assurances in stuff like this when it's something they don't want to do or they are just here to argue.
I don't. But some keep tossing bananas no matter how much poo the thing flings through the bars.
There's a guy I went to high school with who over the past year seems to have gotten a little, shall we say, Q-curious. He was at the 1/6 rally (he insists he didn't enter the Capitol) and has of late become vociferously anti-vax. Now, I grew up in a liberal college town in the Northeast, so most of us are on the left side of the spectrum. I'm not Facebook friends with the guy, but I see him popping up in my classmates' comment sections arguing with people about the vaccine. To be fair, frequently the people he's engaging with are my classmates' non-HS friends who have no idea who this guy is and are probably just trying to counter misinformation. But I just keep seeing the same dynamic play out over and over again. It's clear that the dude is a troll who's deliberately trying to stir #%@# up. Engaging with him just gives his ideas more oxygen. And obviously, nothing these people say is going to change his mind, or even get him to concede an inch.
It seems like most people who are anti vax are also anti anything related to reducing spread; anti masks, social distancing, remote learning, lockdowns, etc. Not really sure what their position is other than complaining about all things trying to be done to try to control it. Either it’s Covid isn’t a big deal or we should just let it rip through and take our chances? Don’t get it.The Commish said:
Pro-ostrich. Keep heads in the sand and hope things go back to “the good ol’ days.”
It’s really frustrating having friends that just act stupid about this one thing. In one breadth the complaints about issues with school and sports and in another won’t do the simplest thing that’s widely available to ensure that school/sports in the Fall won’t be affected. Luckily, my youngest is 14, so my family including my sister/BIL and parents are all full vaccinated with Pfizer/Moderna. I’m not worried about Delta at all but I feel bad for folks with young kids who can’t get the vaccine. I don’t feel bad at all for people who refuse it for stupid reasons.
I'm a pretty empathetic person in general, more so than many FBGs I believe. But I've become pretty hardened to the people that appear on TV, devastated by COVID, after refusing the vaccine. They are usually on telling people they regret not getting it and not to make the same mistake as them. While I appreciate the message, I've pretty much lost the ability to have any empathy for them. They made a choice, the result of which should surprise no rational person, and that choice had consequences.
Exactly how I feel. I used to feel so bad and felt lucky to not be affected but when I took my 14 year old for his two shots there were a couple walk-ins but no one else. Nothing like when I got mine where just making an appointment was tough. You could now walk into a Walgreens or CVS and get a free vaccine with a few minute wait.
For a person presenting with symptoms suspicious for covid, a nucleic acid amplification test (usually PCR) is performed. The test measures viral RNA on a swab, typically from the nose/nasopharynx. Vaccination status isn't considered, nor should it interfere with testing.
Incorrect sir. They "amplify" the sample 27 times for vaccined people as stated on the CDC website and CDC states no direction for unvaccinated people. The standard used at the beginning of the pandemic was to "amplify" 37 times. The CDC changed amplification just for vaccinated people. Just assume I am correct for a second. Why would they do that? Makes it really hard to get good data to learn from.
![[icon]](/data/avatars/m/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
You have a link to this CDC page that claims this method is used for vaxxed folks?
This did not happen:
Ugh, it’s sucks so much that people are willing to believe these conspiracy sites over normal news. They’ll accept an article with an agenda siting the CDC or even a FB summary of the article but wouldn’t ever bother reading what’s actually posted on the CDC site. It’s just so sad that people fall for this ####. I even see it in the stock threads. The amount of garbage posts on Reddit that people soak up as fact rather than actually doing some real research is amazing. In the end the only people who get hurt are the ones believing the posts as fact and unquestioning followers. The posters and early investors getting followers make out.
You aren’t correct, at least not universally so.
Cycle threshold conspiracies were all the rage back in the fall, as overamplified samples were yet another way covid deniers suggested the caseload numbers were inflated.
Confirmation bias is already a ginormous problem, but add financial incentive to the mix and willingness to accept garbage really goes off the rails.
The guidance you linked to is not guidance regarding breakthrough case identification -- it is guidance about collecting specimens from breakthrough cases so that the viral genome (e.g. specific variant/strain) can be identified.
You keep popping into this thread, laying down claims or telling people they are wrong, then multiple people with actual experience to answer your questions/claims refute them and you fail to come back and ever admit you may be mistaken. Then you disappear for a while, come back, rinse and repeat.
I may be mistaken. Now show me the cdc testing directive. From their website like I showed from their website.
What are the standards? Show me.
Simple answer is, and I am guessing you saw the cdc directive link. If it was all the same, why make that directive if it was what is/what being done.
Would be nice if the FDA had approved already, no doubt. It is coming though. When approved would that matter to antivaxers? Doubt it. Even if approved now they’d probably just say the approval was rushed, or can’t trust the FDA.
They applied for BLA it's up to the FDA now
You didn't link to what you thought you linked to.
Question: Once it's off EUA and approved, will you drop your objections?
Not OSHA's bailiwick. Discussed between JerryG and I in one of the Political Forum COVID threads (Link1) (Link2). You can read the relevant OSHA regulations at the links.
Why don't you just continue to not get the shot and quit worrying about what the FFA thinks? You call other posters cultist, yet you seem to fit that definition much more than anyone you continue to argue this over. Your fervor really is unmatched in this thread. It really is a classic case of
.
Yup, if @Doug B's post didn't register even a little bit, I doubt anything will re-rail that train.
From the guys who authorized the tests:
NIH statement
For good measure, this is what the CDC thinks:
