COVID

[hongkongwargamer]

Friends have had covid and now with a life long immunity, still mad vaxxer do not care and only propagate that all should be injected with the Corona juice.

Friends have had covid and now with "life long" immunity - 'cause they are DEAD.

 

[ibncalb]

Best thread ever.

 

[Actionjick]

An African Politician tested a goat and a piece of fruit with the available Covid Tests...They both came back positive...
A piece of FRUIT!

Which only proves the point of how widespread and virulent the virus actually is. Perhaps you need to work on your debating skills.

 

[Actionjick]

The same African Politician played ASL against a goat and a piece of fruit with the available ASL modules .. they both won!
A piece of FRUIT!!

Well the goat was greatest of all time and the fruit was a tankgerine so the politician's loss was understandable.

Imagine if the fruit was a fortenberry!

 

[Manilianus]

The medial research of science, vs the corona mongers.

A Victory for Natural Immunity and Sanity - The American Spectator | USA News and PoliticsThe American Spectator | USA News and Politics

I’ve written at length about the bizarre lack of acknowledgment of COVID survivors who possess natural immunity. They should be recognized.

spectator.org

1. Author of the article is a professor of political science, not of medicine. In the article he states that in "Nature" it is said that "COVID survivors have long-lasting immunity", but when you check that source, it says the opposite. To be more specific:

"Nonetheless, it has been reported that levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 serum antibodies decrease rapidly in the first few months after infection, raising concerns that long-lived BMPCs may not be generated and humoral immunity against SARS-CoV-2 may be short-lived".

And:

"Reinfections by seasonal coronaviruses occur 6 to 12 months after the previous infection, indicating that protective immunity against these viruses may be short-lived. Early reports documenting rapidly declining antibody titres in the first few months after infection in individuals who had recovered from COVID-19 suggested that protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2 might be similarly transient".

(Emphasis mine)

Later on he merges this manipulation with the fact that it seems to be pointless to vaccinate people who recovered from COVID, but he omits another quote: "In contrast, individuals without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection can get the maximum benefits from vaccination" - it's from another article that he himself quotes.

So, on a contrary, two of the articles that he quoted illustrate well established modus operandi of medical facilities all around the world:

a) Vaccinate people who haven't got infected by COVID.
b) Do not vaccinate people who have recovered from COVID as long as they have immunity, but
c) Protective immunity from getting through COVID is temporal, so those people should also be vaccinated, only later.

They do NOT state that there is such a thing as a life-long COVID immunity.

2. Later on author pushes on anecdotal evidence, a private observation that he uses to prove his thesis.

3. The authority that he relies on in the second half of his essay is professor Zywicki - but again, a professor of law, not medicine.

I didn't check the whole article, but tell me - how can I trust someone who either manipulates information that he himself posts (or is unable to understand what he reads), who uses anecdote as a scientific proof and who quotes people who aren't authorities from the branch of science he's talking about?

 

[davegin]

Questions I would like answers to:

1. Did Covid 19 originate in a lab in China?
2. Is the Pfizer vaccine currently the only one fully approved by the FDA?
3. Are 70 of the major stockholders in Pfizer actually Chinese Nationals?
4. Is Fauci's wife actually involed with Pfizer or on its board?
5. Has the global death rate significantly increased over the past 2 years?
6. How deep was Fauci involved with the Wuhan lab?
7. Isn't it true that Pfizer was previously fined 2.3 billion and criminally fined another amount for pharma abuses?

You may need to do a little research on these questions but if you do, test your math skills and see if 1 + 1 actually equals two.

 

[GeorgeBates]

Best thread ever.

Certainly has been instructional in learning who belongs on the "Ignore" list.

 

[Jazz]

Best thread ever.

<Gasp!> Surely not better than Mila 18?

 

[Neal]

 

[davegin]

Who laid those train tracks? Who directed the train onto that route? What were their financial involvements?

Until you answer those questions, I see no reason to get off the train.

A Hollywood movie company. A film director. Investors in the movie. OK, now can you answer mine?

 

[aiabx]

I'd like to apologize to our moderator. Apparently we can't handle a COVID thread.

 

[Jazz]

I'd like to apologize to our moderator. Apparently we can't handle a COVID thread.

Whatever possessed you to think that we could?

 

[STAVKA]

1. Author of the article is a professor of political science, not of medicine. In the article he states that in "Nature" it is said that "COVID survivors have long-lasting immunity", but when you check that source, it says the opposite. To be more specific:

"Nonetheless, it has been reported that levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 serum antibodies decrease rapidly in the first few months after infection, raising concerns that long-lived BMPCs may not be generated and humoral immunity against SARS-CoV-2 may be short-lived".

And:

"Reinfections by seasonal coronaviruses occur 6 to 12 months after the previous infection, indicating that protective immunity against these viruses may be short-lived. Early reports documenting rapidly declining antibody titres in the first few months after infection in individuals who had recovered from COVID-19 suggested that protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2 might be similarly transient".

(Emphasis mine)

Later on he merges this manipulation with the fact that it seems to be pointless to vaccinate people who recovered from COVID, but he omits another quote: "In contrast, individuals without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection can get the maximum benefits from vaccination" - it's from another article that he himself quotes.

So, on a contrary, two of the articles that he quoted illustrate well established modus operandi of medical facilities all around the world:

a) Vaccinate people who haven't got infected by COVID.
b) Do not vaccinate people who have recovered from COVID as long as they have immunity, but
c) Protective immunity from getting through COVID is temporal, so those people should also be vaccinated, only later.

They do NOT state that there is such a thing as a life-long COVID immunity.

2. Later on author pushes on anecdotal evidence, a private observation that he uses to prove his thesis.

3. The authority that he relies on in the second half of his essay is professor Zywicki - but again, a professor of law, not medicine.

I didn't check the whole article, but tell me - how can I trust someone who either manipulates information that he himself posts (or is unable to understand what he reads), who uses anecdote as a scientific proof and who quotes people who aren't authorities from the branch of science he's talking about?

You should contact the writer with your thoughts he welcome readers to do so,

You are not going to ASLOK or other events then?

 

[Manilianus]

You should contact the writer with your thoughts he welcome readers to do so,

You are not going to ASLOK or other events then?

No, I can't afford ASLOK anyway - combined with travelling costs and everything else, it'd end at circa $1k at least...

 

[BattleSchool]

Authors of the Great Barrington Declaration have taken a different approach to prevailing Covid-19 policy making supported by signatories of the John Snow Memorandum, as noted in The Lancet last November. According to one of the architects of the declaration, only data will prove whether lock-downs and mask mandates were the right way to go. Moreover, in Sunetra Gupta's view, it's difficult to distinguish the effects of herd immunity from vaccine-acquired immunity in the data to date. Further, she contends that just as herd immunity does not prevent the spread of the disease, neither does the vaccine, which is designed to lessen the severity of the disease, not prevent its spread. IOW, even vacinated people can spread Covid.

But here's the thing, regardless of how a person acquired immunity to the severest effects of the disease, the disease will become endemic, and therefore able to reinfect the general population indefinitely. A zero-Covid policy is thus doomed to failure. However, like other coronaviruses, such as SARS, there's no reason to think, according to Sunetra Gupta and her colleagues, that Covid-19 will not become a far less deadly disease once it becomes endemic than influenza continues to be.

So if we cannot eradicate Covid-19, what do we do about it? Well, in the context of ASLOk, I think the sensible thing is for people who are, or suspect they are, vulnerable to Covid to do one of two things: get vaccinated well before they attend, or stay home. If players want to attend, whether vacinnated or not, it's up to them. And if some are unhappy about the prospect of unvaccinated people attending, the former ought to consider staying home too. This is the same advice I'd offer to those concerned about influenza, or any other communicable disease. Unless TDs are going to get into the business of requiring TB and Hep-C visas at tourneys, we all ought to accept that life is full of (largely) manageable risks.

Based on current data, the odds of a vaccinated person under 70, with no known co-morbidities, being hospitalized, let alone dying, from Covid is miniscule. IOW, you have a better chance of rolling back-to-back boxcars several times over than suffering serious illness if you've been vaccinated.

Speaking of luck, who are the favourites to win MVP in the World Cup this year?

 

[aiabx]

Chris - to say the Barrington Declaration is controversial would be a great understatement. I would not put myself or others at risk by taking their claims at face value.

5 failings of the Great Barrington Declaration | Queen's Gazette

Facing the threat of COVID-19, we have never been in more need of coherent and consistent messaging from the medical professionals, scientists, public health agencies and the government.

www.queensu.ca

The latest numbers I have seen from the World Health Organization is that vaccines are providing 80-90% protection against infection, and vaccinated people who are infected have vastly reduced effects. So if I lived alone on a mountain, I would come down from it to play ASL in Cleveland. But I don't. That 10-20% chance of getting infected, even if I don't suffer ill effects, still puts my friends, family and neighbours at greater risk than they need to be. I do know people with compromised immune systems. I do know people who are over 70. I do know people who cannot be vaccinated for legitimate reasons. I'm not going to put them at risk for the sake of a boardgame. I'm comfortable in the company of other fully vaccinated people. I'm not comfortable in the company of people who have decided that their "freedom" is worth putting me and my community at greater risk. I've lost enough people in my circle from this pandemic, I'm not going to lose more by my own neglect. So I will not be attending ASLOK this year.

 

[davegin]

Just watched Fauci's latest report on Meet the Press. Seems he does not agree with what is said in the previous post as to the vaccines providing 80-90% protection. He stated that the vaccine is important because it reduces the effects of any infection, not prevent. I am over 70 and so are a lot of my friends. I am comfortable in the company of those who are vaccinated and those who are not. After all, most of the people on our planet will never be vaccinated anyway. I have not only not lost anyone, I still don't know anyone who has been sick for more than a couple days if at all. If I was not willing to associate with my circle of friends, I would actually not have any "circle" of friends. I will not lose any time on what life I have left fearing this virus any more than cancer, heart disease, or any other more serious disease prevalent in our society. If I would be forced to live in isolation, I would consider life not worth living. I will be going to ASLOK as well as any other FTF tournaments my meager finances allow me to afford.

 

[aiabx]

The only thing I can find about Fauci claiming vaccines don't prevent infection are videos that have been selectively edited to make it appear he is saying what he is not:

PolitiFact - Misleading video suggests Dr. Anthony Fauci said vaccines don’t protect people from COVID-19

Social media users are claiming that a viral video posted on Instagram shows Dr. Anthony Fauci saying that vaccines don’

www.politifact.com

Video Misinterprets Fauci’s Comments on COVID-19 Vaccine - FactCheck.org

A Facebook video distorts a CNN interview with Dr. Anthony Fauci to falsely suggest that a COVID-19 vaccine authorized in the U.S doesn’t “protect you from covid.”

www.factcheck.org

If you have a link from a reliable source, I would be fascinated to see it. Here is my citation:

https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/epi/covid-19-epi-confirmed-cases-post-vaccination.pdf?la=en

"This report provides a focused analysis on confirmed cases of COVID-19 infection following COVID-19 vaccination. While vaccines provide a high degree of protection from COVID-19 infection, it is expected that a small proportion of vaccinated individuals may become infected as no vaccine is 100% effective. Protection from COVID-19 infection does not occur immediately following vaccination. Immunity develops over time. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) is estimated to be 60-80% for preventing COVID-19 infection 3-4 weeks after receiving a single dose of Pfizer, Moderna, or AstraZeneca vaccines.1,2 Following the second dose, VE increases to greater than 85%. When COVID-19 cases occur following vaccination, there is evidence that vaccines reduce symptomatic infection, the severity of illness, as well as transmission."

Note: this is not an American source. It comes from a country where Dr Fauci is not an authority and there are approved alternatives available to the Pfizer vaccine.

 

[hongkongwargamer]

Just watched Fauci's latest report on Meet the Press. Seems he does not agree with what is said in the previous post as to the vaccines providing 80-90% protection. He stated that the vaccine is important because it reduces the effects of any infection, not prevent. I am over 70 and so are a lot of my friends. I am comfortable in the company of those who are vaccinated and those who are not. After all, most of the people on our planet will never be vaccinated anyway. I have not only not lost anyone, I still don't know anyone who has been sick for more than a couple days if at all. If I was not willing to associate with my circle of friends, I would actually not have any "circle" of friends. I will not lose any time on what life I have left fearing this virus any more than cancer, heart disease, or any other more serious disease prevalent in our society. If I would be forced to live in isolation, I would consider life not worth living. I will be going to ASLOK as well as any other FTF tournaments my meager finances allow me to afford.

I..I..I..I..I..I..I..I..I..I...I....

 

[davegin]

The only thing I can find about Fauci claiming vaccines don't prevent infection are videos that have been selectively edited to make it appear he is saying what he is not:

PolitiFact - Misleading video suggests Dr. Anthony Fauci said vaccines don’t protect people from COVID-19

Social media users are claiming that a viral video posted on Instagram shows Dr. Anthony Fauci saying that vaccines don’

www.politifact.com

Video Misinterprets Fauci’s Comments on COVID-19 Vaccine - FactCheck.org

A Facebook video distorts a CNN interview with Dr. Anthony Fauci to falsely suggest that a COVID-19 vaccine authorized in the U.S doesn’t “protect you from covid.”

www.factcheck.org

If you have a link from a reliable source, I would be fascinated to see it. Here is my citation:

https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/epi/covid-19-epi-confirmed-cases-post-vaccination.pdf?la=en

"This report provides a focused analysis on confirmed cases of COVID-19 infection following COVID-19 vaccination. While vaccines provide a high degree of protection from COVID-19 infection, it is expected that a small proportion of vaccinated individuals may become infected as no vaccine is 100% effective. Protection from COVID-19 infection does not occur immediately following vaccination. Immunity develops over time. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) is estimated to be 60-80% for preventing COVID-19 infection 3-4 weeks after receiving a single dose of Pfizer, Moderna, or AstraZeneca vaccines.1,2 Following the second dose, VE increases to greater than 85%. When COVID-19 cases occur following vaccination, there is evidence that vaccines reduce symptomatic infection, the severity of illness, as well as transmission."

Note: this is not an American source. It comes from a country where Dr Fauci is not an authority and there are approved alternatives available to the Pfizer vaccine.

What I stated was directly from Fauci, non edited, on this mornings Meet the Press, which was live. Note that the station broadcasting this is a liberal media outlet. What I see you stating above is much different than your former 80-90% protection claim. One of the problems with any of the numbers used in regards to this disease is that they change constantly at the whim of those in charge. The only real proof of effectiveness or side effects will come from long term testing and usage. We will all be dead before this research is over.