Rolovich article on ESPN

[Observer11]

11...I do have to ask...in part because you have been to Best of the West and we have that in common. Once the FDA approves the vaccine will you be in support of the vaccine? Also, have you always had this strong opinions on vaccines? The reason I ask is I know for a fact your kids would not be able to play in the Best of the West or any other grade school, middle school or high school sport without them . What is it about this vaccine that troubles you so much that you must be ok with other vaccine mandates but not this one?

My concern is not whether the vaccines work. They may or may not.

My concern is a one-size-fits all approach mandated by the state. They cannot possibly assess all the variables of individual health choice and risk tolerance.

It's too bad kids have to suffer as they have since day one of this.

 

[CougEd]

My concern is not whether the vaccines work. They may or may not.

My concern is a one-size-fits all approach mandated by the state. They cannot possibly assess all the variables of individual health choice and risk tolerance.

It's too bad kids have to suffer as they have since day one of this.

They have long mandated a one size fits all approach. My kids were jabbed at a very young age. They nor I really had a choice they wanted to participate in sports and school. I am not seeing a ton of difference. It was a one size fits all approach. In terms of risk, you aren't factoring in the unknown/known. What they know there will be variants. The first one seems to have been "knocked out", replaced by a more efficient variant. Did you have this factor as a known last year when you were upset the governor shut down the state?

 

[Observer11]

For those that doubt this, try using Yahoo instead of Google. It's interesting.

Duck Duck Go will set you free.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Who are you referring to as far as "the most polarizing"? If fauci - the head of the National Infectious disease division, if not him, then who? Someone else is going to deliver a dissimilar message?

"Stop faking lying"... who's lying? And what specific "lie" is being promulgated? And what would be the motive to deliberately deceive?

And there have been mask-efficacy studies. I believe Washington University out of St.Louis did one last year, just off the top of my head. Prolly more. Taihtsat

The funny thing about these threads is that it's obvious that we're all so deeply entrenched that nothing is going to change minds.

For what it's worth, even though I'm pro-vaccine and mask tolerant, I totally understand why the people that don't agree with that feel the way that they do. Our government has absolutely moved the goalposts around in the past year with some very sketchy logic to support some of the moves. Over the course of the past year, the CDC (and Fauci) have flip-flopped on their guidance based on what they wanted to see happen while cherry picking "the science" that supports that guidance and that's a great way to destroy trust.

Americans have every right to be pissed at the government for that.

However........contrary to what the anti-vaccine and anti-mask people believe, I personally believe that the flip-flopped guidance and cherry picking was done to provide the safest environment for the most people at any given point in time. I believe that there were good intentions to the guidance the whole way. Of course, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The problem now is picking what guidance actually makes sense and what part is just bullsh!t.

To me, a lot of people picking the wrong hill to literally die upon as they rail in anger against what they view as a deceptive government. I get their frustration and I do believe that there has been some serious government over-reach and malfeasance over the past 20 months, but I wish that more people looked at it logically rather than making it so subjective and governed by fear. For decades, I've heard people bitch and moan about how slow and archaic the FDA is on drug approval and how progressive and dynamic other countries were on that front. When the FDA flip flops and says, "Yeah, we need to expedite this", the same people bitching about government bureaucracy are suddenly fans of it. I'd laugh if it wasn't so freakin' tragic.

Regardless.....my little soapbox moment here isn't going to change minds either.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

My concern is not whether the vaccines work. They may or may not.

My concern is a one-size-fits all approach mandated by the state. They cannot possibly assess all the variables of individual health choice and risk tolerance.

It's too bad kids have to suffer as they have since day one of this.

So you disagree with desantis and his one size fits all approach in Florida ?

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

The funny thing about these threads is that it's obvious that we're all so deeply entrenched that nothing is going to change minds.

For what it's worth, even though I'm pro-vaccine and mask tolerant, I totally understand why the people that don't agree with that feel the way that they do. Our government has absolutely moved the goalposts around in the past year with some very sketchy logic to support some of the moves. Over the course of the past year, the CDC (and Fauci) have flip-flopped on their guidance based on what they wanted to see happen while cherry picking "the science" that supports that guidance and that's a great way to destroy trust.

Americans have every right to be pissed at the government for that.

However........contrary to what the anti-vaccine and anti-mask people believe, I personally believe that the flip-flopped guidance and cherry picking was done to provide the safest environment for the most people at any given point in time. I believe that there were good intentions to the guidance the whole way. Of course, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The problem now is picking what guidance actually makes sense and what part is just bullsh!t.

To me, a lot of people picking the wrong hill to literally die upon as they rail in anger against what they view as a deceptive government. I get their frustration and I do believe that there has been some serious government over-reach and malfeasance over the past 20 months, but I wish that more people looked at it logically rather than making it so subjective and governed by fear. For decades, I've heard people bitch and moan about how slow and archaic the FDA is on drug approval and how progressive and dynamic other countries were on that front. When the FDA flip flops and says, "Yeah, we need to expedite this", the same people bitching about government bureaucracy are suddenly fans of it. I'd laugh if it wasn't so freakin' tragic.

Regardless.....my little soapbox moment here isn't going to change minds either.

I wouldn't expect from the CDC or any other national health institute to have been 100% consistent all throughout when dealing with a lethal novel virus that we had no previous exposure to that also continually evolves, particularly when having to navigate around hundreds of local jurisdictions and dozens of governors with different population densities and political persuasions.

Also, we can't lose sight of the fact that the first half of this messaging was being handled (muzzled) under an administration that was essentially hostile to the emerging science and evidence being gathered worldwide. Taihtsat

 

[Flatlandcoug]

I wouldn't expect from the CDC or any other national health institute to have been 100% consistent all throughout when dealing with a lethal novel virus that we had no previous exposure to that also continually evolves, particularly when having to navigate around hundreds of local jurisdictions and dozens of governors with different population densities and political persuasions.

Also, we can't lose sight of the fact that the first half of this messaging was being handled (muzzled) under an administration that was essentially hostile to the emerging science and evidence being gathered worldwide. Taihtsat

Some changes in guidance were inevitable. Some bordered on inexcusable. For me, the initial "masks are worthless" guidance followed by "masks are useful" guidance was the most harmful thing that they could have done.

Anyone with a brain who looks back at the past thousand years of history knows that masks are a useful tool for protecting people from getting sick. They aren't foolproof, but they help. By issuing guidance to protect the supply chain for N95 masks.....they poisoned the water on everything else they did after that. I agree that it didn't help that the Cheeto-in-chief was worried more about his legacy than the country, but at the same time, Fauci and others in the CDC decided that putting out conflicting information was ok. It doesn't matter who the leader is, they made choices and it's hurting their credibility now.

 

[CougInSpain]

Well, for the 10% of the population that have been infected and gained some natural immunity, it's reasonable to suggest that they don't need a vaccination. But there are issues with that, which parallel similar issues with the vaccine. We know that people can get COVID more than once, and that vaccinated people can also get it. We don't know how long natural immunity - or vaccine-induced immunity - lasts. We don't know to what degree natural immunity protects (if you had alpha, does it protect from delta?).

And, importantly, there's no apparent harm in getting vaccinated even if you've had COVID. So while there is a valid argument that people who've had it don't need to be first in line to get vaccinated, I don't really see it as a permanent reason that they shouldn't. Whatever the guidance on boosters ends up being, I think should also extend to those who were infected, at least until there's enough research to indicate otherwise.

Uhhh not true.... Natural immunities do provide greater protection from the virus than do any vaccine especially against variants. Also, there are indicators out there that suggest you would be at a greater risk of suffering from the side effects of any of the vaccines if you already have anti-bodies from prior infection. Lastly, its already known that anti-bodies last far longer than any vaccine that is currently being used. So given that information (I'm sure you don't believe any of what I just typed because you don't believe in the validity of anything outside of your echo chamber of lunacy but IDGAF) why would I put myself at risk taking a vaccine for something I have protection against? Tell me why the CDC and your Demi-God Fauci continually ignore the obvious benefit of natural immunities when doling out ridiculous recommendations and mandates? Where did you get this 10% prior infection rate anyways? Would that account for people who were asymptomatic and were never tested?

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

Uhhh not true.... Natural immunities do provide greater protection from the virus than do any vaccine especially against variants. Also, there are indicators out there that suggest you would be at a greater risk of suffering from the side effects of any of the vaccines if you already have anti-bodies from prior infection. Lastly, its already known that anti-bodies last far longer than any vaccine that is currently being used. So given that information (I'm sure you don't believe any of what I just typed because you don't believe in the validity of anything outside of your echo chamber of lunacy but IDGAF) why would I put myself at risk taking a vaccine for something I have protection against? Tell me why the CDC and your Demi-God Fauci continually ignore the obvious benefit of natural immunities when doling out ridiculous recommendations and mandates? Where did you get this 10% prior infection rate anyways? Would that account for people who were asymptomatic and were never tested?

Your first three sentences are unsupported by a preponderance of prevailing evidence currently out there. And if I'm not correct, I'm sure you will be able to provide solid citations to show that I am not correct.

As for fauci and the recommendations for supposedly ignoring the benefits of natural immunity...is it your position that LESS harm (deaths, hospitalizations, long-term effects) would occur if people just got exposed to infection rather than being immunized?

 

[dgibbons]

Your first three sentences are unsupported by a preponderance of prevailing evidence currently out there. And if I'm not correct, I'm sure you will be able to provide solid citations to show that I am not correct.

As for fauci and the recommendations for supposedly ignoring the benefits of natural immunity...is it your position that LESS harm (deaths, hospitalizations, long-term effects) would occur if people just got exposed to infection rather than being immunized?

Gaslighting. The issue is the millions of people that already have recovered, not a completely implausible make believe scenario.

 

[longtimecoug]

Some changes in guidance were inevitable. Some bordered on inexcusable. For me, the initial "masks are worthless" guidance followed by "masks are useful" guidance was the most harmful thing that they could have done.

Anyone with a brain who looks back at the past thousand years of history knows that masks are a useful tool for protecting people from getting sick. They aren't foolproof, but they help. By issuing guidance to protect the supply chain for N95 masks.....they poisoned the water on everything else they did after that. I agree that it didn't help that the Cheeto-in-chief was worried more about his legacy than the country, but at the same time, Fauci and others in the CDC decided that putting out conflicting information was ok. It doesn't matter who the leader is, they made choices and it's hurting their credibility now.

you hit the nail with this, since masks aren't foolproof, anti maskers go all in that they "don't work"

 

[dgibbons]

you hit the nail with this, since masks aren't foolproof, anti maskers go all in that they "don't work"

Cloth, ill-fitting, rarely washed masks don't work.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Cloth, ill-fitting, rarely washed masks don't work.

You say that like it's an argument to not wear masks. I don't remember when the CDC recommended including the use of "cloth, ill-fitting, rarely washed" masks. FWIW, I agree with you that it's a bad idea to wear that type of mask.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

Gaslighting. The issue is the millions of people that already have recovered, not a completely implausible make believe scenario.

No the issue here is the apparent claim that more benefit comes from natural immunity as CIS stated. I asked for clarification...still waiting

 

[dgibbons]

You say that like it's an argument to not wear masks. I don't remember when the CDC recommended including the use of "cloth, ill-fitting, rarely washed" masks. FWIW, I agree with you that it's a bad idea to wear that type of mask.

That's what people wear.

 

[dgibbons]

No the issue here is the apparent claim that more benefit comes from natural immunity as CIS stated. I asked for clarification...still waiting

Then you're retracting your question, correct?

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

Then you're retracting your question, correct?

Go re-read CIS's comment and particularly his first 3 statements. That SHOULD clarify it for you. No, the question for clarification stands. Taihtsat

 

[dgibbons]

Go re-read CIS's comment and particularly his first 3 statements. That SHOULD clarify it for you. No, the question for clarification stands. Taihtsat

This is your question:

As for fauci and the recommendations for supposedly ignoring the benefits of natural immunity...is it your position that LESS harm (deaths, hospitalizations, long-term effects) would occur if people just got exposed to infection rather than being immunized?

Tens of millions of people have already contracted and recovered from the virus, and therefore are naturally immune. That's the point. Them getting vaccinated does nothing other than increase the doses of vaccine delivered (which some pinhead somewhere surely thinks is wonderful), and expose those recovered people to the risk of complications from receiving the vaccine.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

This is your question:

As for fauci and the recommendations for supposedly ignoring the benefits of natural immunity...is it your position that LESS harm (deaths, hospitalizations, long-term effects) would occur if people just got exposed to infection rather than being immunized?

Tens of millions of people have already contracted and recovered from the virus, and therefore are naturally immune. That's the point. Them getting vaccinated doesn't does nothing other than increase the dose of vaccine delivered (which some pinhead somewhere surely thinks is wonderful), and expose those recovered people to the risk of complications from receiving the vaccine.

This is what you missed 20 pages ago when I asked you "what version" of the virus you were referring to (that you didn't answer) with the point being that we simply do not know how much immunity is gained through exposure (how much exposure?) to effectively gain meaningful protection. Do you know? Does anyone REALLY know enough to make affirmative statements on immunity? My position from what I've seen is that we don't. Do you have better info?

Also, earlier I called you "anti-vax". That was dumb as there was nothing in your posts to suggest that you are, so I apologize and retract that nonsense. Taihtsat

 

[dgibbons]

This is what you missed 20 pages ago when I asked you "what version" of the virus you were referring to (that you didn't answer) with the point being that we simply do not know how much immunity is gained through exposure (how much exposure?) to effectively gain meaningful protection. Do you know? Does anyone REALLY know enough to make affirmative statements on immunity? My position from what I've seen is that we don't. Do you have better info?

Lying is unbecoming. This question was answered. You just didn't like the answer.

Also, earlier I called you "anti-vax". That was dumb as there was nothing in your posts to suggest that you are, so I apologize and retract that nonsense. Taihtsat

This was your question:
As for fauci and the recommendations for supposedly ignoring the benefits of natural immunity...is it your position that LESS harm (deaths, hospitalizations, long-term effects) would occur if people just got exposed to infection rather than being immunized?

You have ignored the fact that tens of millions of people have been infected and recovered, and therefore are naturally immune. That's the point.

So, again, are you retracting your question? John McEnroe would like to know.

 

[Observer11]

So you disagree with desantis and his one size fits all approach in Florida ?

I don't really care what desantis does. I don't live in Florida. It is irrelevant to my personal assessment of risk/endangerment (if any) to others.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

Lying is unbecoming. This question was answered. You just didn't like the answer.


This was your question:
As for fauci and the recommendations for supposedly ignoring the benefits of natural immunity...is it your position that LESS harm (deaths, hospitalizations, long-term effects) would occur if people just got exposed to infection rather than being immunized?

You have ignored the fact that tens of millions of people have been infected and recovered, and therefore are naturally immune. That's the point.

So, again, are you retracting your question? John McEnroe would like to know.

View embedded media

It seems it is you who are having a conversation with yourself. My question was for CIS. You are apparently lobbying to be his advocate.

If you carefully follow, my contention is that 3 unsupported claims were made. Two of the three make a claim going directly to your clear belief that once infected, forever immune? Now in debate the one making the claim has the burden of proof. CIS made the claim, not only am I asking for some evidence to support those claims but a reasonable clarification request to understand just what is "ridiculous" about some of the recommendations and mandates as pertaining to what most reasonable people would think was a legitimate goal: less harm.

What do you think would cause less harm (hospitalizations, death, long-term health effects) - more vaccinations or fewer?

 

[CougEd]

I don't really care what desantis does. I don't live in Florida. It is irrelevant to my personal assessment of risk/endangerment (if any) to others.

11… I must admit I do find your position confusing . On one hand you feel bad for the kids , but your answer seems to be let the natural order of things take care of itself .

You freely have administered vaccines to your kids in the past , but you stand on a hill on this vaccine . Those vaccines have been mandated so your kids could play sports and go to school.

You claim it doesn’t have FDA approval, but once it does will you be for mandated vaccines? Or is it really not about the FDA approval but invading on liberties .

If people want to take your stand, while I disagree and don’t understand it.(yes you have made it clear you don’t think the current versions of covid doesn’t present enough danger to shut things down, to get vaccinated or to wear masks) , then do the right thing if your kids, you or people who share your opinion do the right thing and give up hospital beds if that is the treatment that is required.

But what you haven’t told us about and calculated in is the unknown variable . To drive I am required to have insurance . I think of myself as a really good driver . Why should I be required to have insurance ? I assessed my risk and I am a good driver . But that isn’t why we have insurance is it? We have it because of the unknown . I hit a sheet of ice heading to Pullman which was a sheet of black ice . Or someone who stole a car and hits me . Things I don’t believe are going to happen, but they do.

And you want to just “live life” . Here are two examples where people can’t just live life and are being affected by decisions made by others . I know, screw the old people , people who had cancer etc , they were going to die at some point . But I have a good friend whose granddaughter was born at three months . She survived but she is at risk . She is now two , and because of covid she can’t live a normal life because others don’t do what it takes to put covid on a back burner. She is just one of many people who is someone’s daughter , just like your kids, but is being affected in a different way .

In Dallas, they sent away I believe 30 woman who were going to deliver at Parkland Hospital but it is being overrun by delta.

Now if those who aren’t vaccinated agree that the hospital is to be used for normal procedures , and those who are vaccinated have first rights to the icu, then feel free not to do anything to mitigate this virus .

 

[dgibbons]

It seems it is you who are having a conversation with yourself. My question was for CIS. You are apparently lobbying to be his advocate.

If you carefully follow, my contention is that 3 unsupported claims were made. Two of the three make a claim going directly to your clear belief that once infected, forever immune? Now in debate the one making the claim has the burden of proof. CIS made the claim, not only am I asking for some evidence to support those claims but a reasonable clarification request to understand just what is "ridiculous" about some of the recommendations and mandates as pertaining to what most reasonable people would think was a legitimate goal: less harm.

What do you think would cause less harm (hospitalizations, death, long-term health effects) - more vaccinations or fewer?

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

View embedded media

Dodge city - population...YOU! taihtsat

 

[Observer11]

11… I must admit I do find your position confusing . On one hand you feel bad for the kids , but your answer seems to be let the natural order of things take care of itself .

You freely have administered vaccines to your kids in the past , but you stand on a hill on this vaccine . Those vaccines have been mandated so your kids could play sports and go to school.

You claim it doesn’t have FDA approval, but once it does will you be for mandated vaccines? Or is it really not about the FDA approval but invading on liberties .

If people want to take your stand, while I disagree and don’t understand it.(yes you have made it clear you don’t think the current versions of covid doesn’t present enough danger to shut things down, to get vaccinated or to wear masks) , then do the right thing if your kids, you or people who share your opinion do the right thing and give up hospital beds if that is the treatment that is required.

But what you haven’t told us about and calculated in is the unknown variable . To drive I am required to have insurance . I think of myself as a really good driver . Why should I be required to have insurance ? I assessed my risk and I am a good driver . But that isn’t why we have insurance is it? We have it because of the unknown . I hit a sheet of ice heading to Pullman which was a sheet of black ice . Or someone who stole a car and hits me . Things I don’t believe are going to happen, but they do.

And you want to just “live life” . Here are two examples where people can’t just live life and are being affected by decisions made by others . I know, screw the old people , people who had cancer etc , they were going to die at some point . But I have a good friend whose granddaughter was born at three months . She survived but she is at risk . She is now two , and because of covid she can’t live a normal life because others don’t do what it takes to put covid on a back burner. She is just one of many people who is someone’s daughter , just like your kids, but is being affected in a different way .

In Dallas, they sent away I believe 30 woman who were going to deliver at Parkland Hospital but it is being overrun by delta.

Now if those who aren’t vaccinated agree that the hospital is to be used for normal procedures , and those who are vaccinated have first rights to the icu, then feel free not to do anything to mitigate this virus .

I am in favor of individuals making their own healthcare decisions.

 

[dgibbons]

Dodge city - population...YOU! taihtsat

Are you the pot or the kettle?

 

[CougEd]

I am in favor of individuals making their own healthcare decisions.

Except when they are born and it is mandated,. How about when someone's health decision infringes upon others?

 

[Flatlandcoug]

I am in favor of individuals making their own healthcare decisions.

In a lot of respects, I agree with you.....but it is a bit naive to assume that there aren't many, many cases where individuals are denied the right to make their own healthcare decisions.

The GOP has been working to deny the right to women to make their own healthcare decisions when it comes to abortions and contraception. The GOP vehemently believes that individuals shouldn't have the right to make their own healthcare decisions when it comes to gender identity. Whether you support or oppose those items, it's important to realize that there are a lot of people working to deny the right to make those decisions.

Sticking more to vaccines, you have been mandated to receive vaccines your entire life, as we all have. Because this one is new, people feel that it's different, but it's really not. If the government decides to make it mandatory, in five years, we'll all be wondering what the fuss was about.

 

[FnuLnu]

The GOP vehemently believes that individuals shouldn't have the right to make their own healthcare decisions when it comes to gender identity.

Doubt anybody cares if you want to cut your dick off.

Just don't want to pay for it or be forced to attend the "gender reveal party"

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Doubt anybody cares if you want to cut your dick off.

Just don't want to pay for it or be forced to attend the "gender reveal party"

not only that, the quoted statement is untrue. Yeah, there are the fringes but mostly the Healthcare battle and gender comes down to minors and their ability to make decisions without parental guidance and permission, and I have to agree that I don't think a 13 year old should be making the decision to cut their dick off.

 

[Observer11]

Except when they are born and it is mandated,. How about when someone's health decision infringes upon others?

Why do you immediately assume that isn't a consideration?

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Doubt anybody cares if you want to cut your dick off.

Just don't want to pay for it or be forced to attend the "gender reveal party"

But you are fine with insurance (and by extension....us) paying for an ICU visit that probably wouldn't be necessary if a person gets the vaccine?

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

Are you the pot or the kettle?

I'm the grownup. I see you over there in the corner of the room jumping up and down waving your arms trying to be noticed in a conversation that doesn't involve you. Adorable, really

 

[dgibbons]

I'm the grownup. I see you over there in the corner of the room jumping up and down waving your arms trying to be noticed in a conversation that doesn't involve you. Adorable, really

So the pot.

 

[etowncoug]

But you are fine with insurance (and by extension....us) paying for an ICU visit that probably wouldn't be necessary if a person gets the vaccine?

Do you really want to take this to it's logical end?

If any decision that impacts your health impacts me because I might end up paying higher insurance premiums because of it, there is no limit to what I can regulate you do so long as I can use the excuse of it might harm you and therefore harm me. Flat... I believe you to be a good person and I don't think you are doing this intentionally... but this line of reasoning was a bread and butter argument of the eugenics movement.

 

[WillieThePimp]

That’s quite the leap. The only thing you left out was to call him a nazi.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Do you really want to take this to it's logical end?

If any decision that impacts your health impacts me because I might end up paying higher insurance premiums because of it, there is no limit to what I can regulate you do so long as I can use the excuse of it might harm you and therefore harm me. Flat... I believe you to be a good person and I don't think you are doing this intentionally... but this line of reasoning was a bread and butter argument of the eugenics movement.

eugenics? Damn.....that's a bold leap right there. If I said that seat belt laws make sense....does that mean that I'm arguing for the eugenics movement?

My biggest issue, which I've said before, is that all sorts of people harp on having their right to choose what happens to their body but then expect the rest of us to pay for their treatment in the ICU or turn people away. A patient in Abilene, Kansas had to be flown to Wisconsin because there were no ICU beds available in Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska or Oklahoma.

I don't give a crap about eugenics or anything like that.