Vaccine vs. Mask

[gil]

Is this true?

So the tests they've been using have been picking up cold/flu?

So, the flu didn't just disappear then?

So "covid", in many cases, actually was the flu?

So they have no idea how many of those covid deaths would have been flu deaths in any other year?

Clownshow.

This is not true.

[gil]

Very clear now that vaccinated people can get it but won't get as sick. So why is it worse for them to get it from an unvaccinated person in a venue without vax mandates than a vaccinated person in a vaccinated only venue???

Not sure if this is a rhetorical question, but I'll bite. All things equal, it doesn't matter one bit.

But, #1, if the unvaccinated person is carrying a higher viral load, the vaccinated person has a greater chance of contracting the virus, right?

#2 The question you ask sounds a bit like "why is is worse to get T-boned by a drunk driver who ran a red light than T-boned by a sober driver who ran a red light?" Again, it's not worse. But it's also not an argument against laws that restrict drinking and driving.

[D-train]

Very clear now that vaccinated people can get it but won't get as sick. So why is it worse for them to get it from an unvaccinated person in a venue without vax mandates than a vaccinated person in a vaccinated only venue???

Not sure if this is a rhetorical question, but I'll bite. All things equal, it doesn't matter one bit.

But, #1, if the unvaccinated person is carrying a higher viral load, the vaccinated person has a greater chance of contracting the virus, right?

#2 The question you ask sounds a bit like "why is is worse to get T-boned by a drunk driver who ran a red light than T-boned by a sober driver who ran a red light?" Again, it's not worse. But it's also not an argument against laws that restrict drinking and driving.

So you are saying it is more likely for a vaccinated person to get infected by an unvaccinated person than a vaccinated person? Seems reasonable but is there science/studies that indicate that?

[gil]

OK here are some newer things, but really ...

I think my "narrative" is about finding out what is true. And you know what? I bet yours are also. We all think we are trying to find out what is true.

So serious question: How do you decide what is true? Is there an objective reality that you can discern if you don't believe a large segment of the information that you locate online, in the news, and/or talking with people?

https://www.businessinsider.com/covid-e ... 021-7?op=1

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210 ... CoV-2.aspx

Where to even begin. I'd like to know specifically how you came across the article you posted in an effort to debunk WW's posting.
Did you google it? is so, what exactly did you google to get that particular article?
Did you read if before posting? The data was blatantly outdated, so, were you just lazy in vetting it? My initial reaction to it, was you either posted it to be antagonistic, knowing the data was obsolete, but it still fit a 'narrative', or you were simply lazy. I don't find you antagonistic, so I lean into the lazy theory. And you didn't answer the question - do you stand behind that article - do you believe it?

I'll tell you how I crunch info - but first, I'll tell you flat out that the NYT and WaPo are rags. They were great back in the day, when they did actual reporting, and I read them all the time - but they have since become blatant mouth pieces for the Dems - and that is not even debatable. They wouldn't even deny it - they're proud of it. How many Trump hit pieces did they write leading up to the election - that they later had to retract AFTER the election, after the damage was done? It was multiple - at least three I believe - ALL Anti-Trump fiction. Last one I remember was the "georgia conversation' that claimed Trump said (xyz) to a politician demanding they 'find his votes' with no sources or any verification - it was debunked when the audio tapes were released - but the 'story' led to a whole bunch of BS headlines and Trump derangement syndrome. I don't take anyone seriously that uses those outlets as legitimate information sources anymore - they are not. they are 100% propaganda. I find it very hard to believe you are not aware of this. You are admitting you get information from notoriously bias sources.

1. What specifically did you google search to find that article?
2. Do you still stand behind it?
3. Do you seriously consider NYT and WaPo to be credible and unbiased sources?

Sorry it's taken a while to get back on the board. As I recall, I searched for "asymptomatic transmission" and maybe added covid to the search. I was trying to find articles that might be "acceptable" sources to you and others who don't trust the CDC or the MSM.

I'll admit to being lazy at times, and I certainly wan't trying to be antagonistic. I genuinely believe there are lots (I'd bet my life that it is the vast majority) of scientists and researchers who are trying their best to come up with the truth about transmission. It seems that recent recent research says there is less asymptomatic transmission that what was found earlier. But it is not NONE, which is what McCullough said (and I reacted to).

I know that NYT and WaPo have primarily left-learning opinion columnists, and I know there is often a leftward slant on what they choose to cover. And they have made mistakes that they have retracted. But I'd say they are more credible than CNN on the left, or FoxNews on the right.

Have you seem the "All Sides" analysis of bias? https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart It looks pretty accurate to me.

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

I just don't buy the masking up policies equating to controlling your life. It's a mask. You don't become a socialist because you wore a mask.

Wore a mask for the 1st time in a long time yesterday - had to take kid 1 to Urgent Care. 2 1/2 hours of my life I won't get back. I didn't feel my freedom taken away though.

I agree that masks in public indoor places weren't a big deal but in terms of empathy think about someone that has a phobia of needles or that are paranoid about vaccines even if its OCD or irrational (btw drugs typically take 12 years to go from discovery to commercialization vs. 8 months for this vax) so a lot of it is rational skepticism.

So now they have to choose between having a job and being able to go to restaurants and gyms and events or having major anxiety an making a healthcare decision against their will. Its just wrong on so many levels and it makes no sense. The only people at risk are those that choose to be.

So you have empathy for someone that fears a vaccine or needle, but not for someone who bows out of their Olympic event.

The research of a virus pandemic didn't start 8 months ago - it's been ~10 years in the making. Doctors are recommending the vaccine - shouldn't we just listen to our doctor? I have a 7 yr old that has had 3 heart surgeries. I have my opinions of the vaccine, but I literally just do what his cardiologist tells us to do. She says to get the vaccine so we just did it.

NOTE - Yes, I went to a prestigious college of Wazzu - I might have drank, smoked weed, and chased tail around for 5 years so I'm also very smart. But I just listened to our doctor instead. Crazy times.

Prestigious college......how low is your bar to call WSU 'prestigious?
Drank & weed.....explains a lot!
Very smart....don't know if I'd go right to very if it took you 5 years.

[gil]

Very clear now that vaccinated people can get it but won't get as sick. So why is it worse for them to get it from an unvaccinated person in a venue without vax mandates than a vaccinated person in a vaccinated only venue???

Not sure if this is a rhetorical question, but I'll bite. All things equal, it doesn't matter one bit.

But, #1, if the unvaccinated person is carrying a higher viral load, the vaccinated person has a greater chance of contracting the virus, right?

#2 The question you ask sounds a bit like "why is is worse to get T-boned by a drunk driver who ran a red light than T-boned by a sober driver who ran a red light?" Again, it's not worse. But it's also not an argument against laws that restrict drinking and driving.

So you are saying it is more likely for a vaccinated person to get infected by an unvaccinated person than a vaccinated person? Seems reasonable but is there science/studies that indicate that?

I just saw in the last week that "vaccinated people infected with the delta variant carry viral loads similar to those of people who are unvaccinated." https://www.jhsph.edu/covid-19/articles ... duals.html But that is based on the individuals being infected, right? There isn't much dispute that the likelihood of the vaccinated person having the virus is less.

[D-train]

Not sure if this is a rhetorical question, but I'll bite. All things equal, it doesn't matter one bit.

But, #1, if the unvaccinated person is carrying a higher viral load, the vaccinated person has a greater chance of contracting the virus, right?

#2 The question you ask sounds a bit like "why is is worse to get T-boned by a drunk driver who ran a red light than T-boned by a sober driver who ran a red light?" Again, it's not worse. But it's also not an argument against laws that restrict drinking and driving.

So you are saying it is more likely for a vaccinated person to get infected by an unvaccinated person than a vaccinated person? Seems reasonable but is there science/studies that indicate that?

I just saw in the last week that "vaccinated people infected with the delta variant carry viral loads similar to those of people who are unvaccinated." https://www.jhsph.edu/covid-19/articles ... duals.html But that is based on the individuals being infected, right? There isn't much dispute that the likelihood of the vaccinated person having the virus is less.

Sure but I would think that like conception, it only takes one. Nobody on earth knows for sure.

[maoling]

Huh. In the late 30's, Hitler and his cronies forced Jews to wear a yellow star on their clothing. Easy to control the population that way. Must be a good guy if you don't wear the yellow star.

Ah, but now you must be a good guy if you wear a mask! That is your "yellow star" to prove you are one of the "good guys." Kind of a reversal on an old theme! And to make certain you wear your mask, we won't vaccinate "the children" under the age of 13.

And soon thereafter, if you weren't wearing a swastika or a party badge, they had a star or a triangle to classify everyone.

https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Nazi_co ... amp_badges

[SpokaneCoug]

I agree that masks in public indoor places weren't a big deal but in terms of empathy think about someone that has a phobia of needles or that are paranoid about vaccines even if its OCD or irrational (btw drugs typically take 12 years to go from discovery to commercialization vs. 8 months for this vax) so a lot of it is rational skepticism.

So now they have to choose between having a job and being able to go to restaurants and gyms and events or having major anxiety an making a healthcare decision against their will. Its just wrong on so many levels and it makes no sense. The only people at risk are those that choose to be.

So you have empathy for someone that fears a vaccine or needle, but not for someone who bows out of their Olympic event.

The research of a virus pandemic didn't start 8 months ago - it's been ~10 years in the making. Doctors are recommending the vaccine - shouldn't we just listen to our doctor? I have a 7 yr old that has had 3 heart surgeries. I have my opinions of the vaccine, but I literally just do what his cardiologist tells us to do. She says to get the vaccine so we just did it.

NOTE - Yes, I went to a prestigious college of Wazzu - I might have drank, smoked weed, and chased tail around for 5 years so I'm also very smart. But I just listened to our doctor instead. Crazy times.

Prestigious college......how low is your bar to call WSU 'prestigious?
Drank & weed.....explains a lot!
Very smart....don't know if I'd go right to very if it took you 5 years.

Those were tonge and cheek comments dude. You must've been hilarious at parties. Not that you can call UW parties, "parties".

[gil]

So you are saying it is more likely for a vaccinated person to get infected by an unvaccinated person than a vaccinated person? Seems reasonable but is there science/studies that indicate that?

I just saw in the last week that "vaccinated people infected with the delta variant carry viral loads similar to those of people who are unvaccinated." https://www.jhsph.edu/covid-19/articles ... duals.html But that is based on the individuals being infected, right? There isn't much dispute that the likelihood of the vaccinated person having the virus is less.

Sure but I would think that like conception, it only takes one. Nobody on earth knows for sure.

Yes, but what are the odds of it being the one? Intercourse without a condom gives a better chance of conception than, um, some other activities. You wouldn't say "nobody knows" about that would you? Even though there is always a chance and if one did the research you could assign the probabilities.