Vax Card or Negative Test for Entry to Joe Aillet

[HogDawg]

Ok, 10 times greater than .1% is 1%. So, if you are correct, I still have a 99% chance to survive and actually did. Don't need the China shot.

So, explain this report from the UK:

The UK government just reported the following data,

From the 1st of February to the 2nd of August, the UK recorded 742 Delta deaths
Out of the 742 deaths, 402 were fully vaccinated. 79 had received one shot. Only 253 were unvaccinated.
two-thirds of Delta deaths in the UK are from the vaxxed.

https://chriswaldburger.substack.com/p/bombshell-uk-data-destroys-entire

https://assets.publishing.service.go...riefing_20.pdf

Wow. This is really good info. Look at this:

Quote from the study:

"Again, 402 deaths out of 47,008 cases in vaccinated; 253 deaths out of 151,054 cases in unvaccinated. If you get covid having been vaccinated, according to this data, you are much more likely to die than if you were not vaccinated!"

That's a death rate of 0.855% for the vaccinated, and 0.16749% for the unvaccinated.

That means --according to this study-- the death rate for the vaccinated is 5.1 times greater than for the unvaccinated. (0.855/.16749 = 5.1048)

[PawDawg]

I got the shot this past February and I tested positive for Covid the First of August and have now recovered from it. So there you go, I have been saying the same thing that the vaccination is not going to be any more effective long term than the Flu or Pneumonia shot.

Thank you. It's not a vaccine, it is a shot series. Obviously more complicated than the flu variants which don't claim to be a vaccine.

Having a goof ball like Fauci as a spokes person has been our biggest problem with this whole mess.

[Guisslapp]

Ok, 10 times greater than .1% is 1%. So, if you are correct, I still have a 99% chance to survive and actually did. Don't need the China shot.

So, explain this report from the UK:

The UK government just reported the following data,

From the 1st of February to the 2nd of August, the UK recorded 742 Delta deaths
Out of the 742 deaths, 402 were fully vaccinated. 79 had received one shot. Only 253 were unvaccinated.
two-thirds of Delta deaths in the UK are from the vaxxed.
https://chriswaldburger.substack.com/p/bombshell-uk-data-destroys-entire
https://assets.publishing.service.go...riefing_20.pdf

Well, there are at least two factors that make a difference in the UK.

1. AstraZeneca (adenovirus) vaccine is the dominant vaccine in UK and it has been less effective than the mRNA vaccines, particularly over time.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02261-8

2. 88% of the adult population in UK have been vaccinated. So, on a per capita basis, thethe unvaxxed deaths are higher. 12 percent of the population is making up 34% of the deaths based on the reported UK numbers. The vaccinations stats skew even higher when you look at the UK adult population that is most at risk, which makes it even more likely that they were vaccinated than the average 88%.

[inudesu]

this is EXACTLY why TylerDawg (sp?) is always bringing politics into the conversation.

Ray hasn't posted in a couple of months, which is unusual. I hope he's doing ok.

We don't need more political posts in the sports forums, but I miss his optimism about the Dawgs.

Maybe just taking a break? Anyone know?

[johnnylightnin]

Ray hasn't posted in a couple of months, which is unusual. I hope he's doing ok.

We don't need more political posts in the sports forums, but I miss his optimism about the Dawgs.

Maybe just taking a break? Anyone know?

He’s taking a break. Last I spoke with him (earlier this month), all was well.

[inudesu]

He’s taking a break. Last I spoke with him (earlier this month), all was well.

Probably wise, and good to hear. Thanks.

[johnnylightnin]

What's stupid about it? It's a documented FACT that obese people are in a higher risk category and 3 times more likely to be Hospitalized from COVID than non-obese people.

It's stupid because vaccine restrictions are not about the risk posed by the unvaxxed person to THEMSELF, but about the risk they pose to everyone else. Sure, you can make an argument about hospital capacity, but ultimately, vaccine and mask requirements are about the rights of others, not about our own. If unvaccinated people only posed a threat to themselves, you wouldn't see any vaccine mandates.

[dawg80]

It's stupid because vaccine restrictions are not about the risk posed by the unvaxxed person to THEMSELF, but about the risk they pose to everyone else. Sure, you can make an argument about hospital capacity, but ultimately, vaccine and mask requirements are about the rights of others, not about our own. If unvaccinated people only posed a threat to themselves, you wouldn't see any vaccine mandates.

But, aren't the unvaxxed only posing a threat to other unvaxxed?

[johnnylightnin]

But, aren't the unvaxxed only posing a threat to other unvaxxed?

No. The unvaxxed are mutation factories that can potentially churn out variants that are vaccine resistant. Now, as it pertains to sporting events and bars/restaurants, they post a bigger immediate threat to the unvaccinated, but as the virus mutates, they are potentially threatening us all.

All that said, HD is right that immunocompromised people should avoid large indoor gatherings (like Saints games), but their failure to do that puts them at risk as opposed to putting other attendees at risk.

[Guisslapp]

But, aren't the unvaxxed only posing a threat to other unvaxxed?

The unvaxxed population also includes most kids.

[techman05]

https://unherd.com/thepost/the-most-...p-of-all-phds/

Yes the uneducated are a large portion of the unvaxxed. Doesn’t specify if they are middle of America uneducated or inner city. However, the “smartest” among us are the most vaccine hesitant. And there are far more liberal PhD’s than conservative. So, hhmmm…….

[Guisslapp]

https://unherd.com/thepost/the-most-...p-of-all-phds/

Yes the uneducated are a large portion of the unvaxxed. Doesn’t specify if they are middle of America uneducated or inner city. However, the “smartest” among us are the most vaccine hesitant. And there are far more liberal PhD’s than conservative. So, hhmmm…….

A sensitivity analysis found some people answered in the extreme ends of some demographic categories to throw off some of the numbers. King said it appeared to be a “concerted effort” that “did make the hesitancy prevalence in the Ph.D. group look higher than it really is.”

For example, they observed higher hesitancy rates than expected in the oldest age group — 75 and over — as well as the top end in terms of education level.

“We found that people basically used it to write in political … statements,” King said. “So they weren’t genuine responses. They didn’t really complete the survey in good faith.”

[techman05]

A sensitivity analysis found some people answered in the extreme ends of some demographic categories to throw off some of the numbers. King said it appeared to be a “concerted effort” that “did make the hesitancy prevalence in the Ph.D. group look higher than it really is.”

For example, they observed higher hesitancy rates than expected in the oldest age group — 75 and over — as well as the top end in terms of education level.

“We found that people basically used it to write in political … statements,” King said. “So they weren’t genuine responses. They didn’t really complete the survey in good faith.”

I can see that. Any time I get a political survey phone call during dinner, I almost always answer the opposite of what I really believe. Don’t mess with family time.

[dawg80]

No. The unvaxxed are mutation factories that can potentially churn out variants that are vaccine resistant. Now, as it pertains to sporting events and bars/restaurants, they post a bigger immediate threat to the unvaccinated, but as the virus mutates, they are potentially threatening us all.

All that said, HD is right that immunocompromised people should avoid large indoor gatherings (like Saints games), but their failure to do that puts them at risk as opposed to putting other attendees at risk.

I am not a virologist, but here goes anyway...

seems to me that a virus seeks a host where it can thrive and then spread to other hosts. Using this China virus as an example, we have Verison 1 (Ver 1) that escapes China (Wuhan Lab) and starts to spread. As long as Ver 1 can find suitable hosts it is happy and has no reason to mutate. Eventually its success will lead to "herd immunity" and compounding the problem for it are those vaxxed against Ver 1. The China virus sees its days numbered as Ver 1, so it mutates. But not because of the unvaxxed where Ver 1 is still effective, but rather because of the vaxxed and those with natural immunity. So from a process similar to natural selection, a Ver 2 (Delta) emerges and finds new life which can now infect more hosts, including those with a measure of defense against its former self, Ver 1.

Seems logical to me that it is the vaccines, the vaxxed, and those with natural immunity, that has caused the China virus to have to mutate just to survive. Of course, a virus is not a living thing (like bacteria is) and it just kind of bumps along through the world like driftwood in a swift flood, seeking to hold on wherever it can. This is not part of some grand plan hatched by the virus, it is just...the way viruses work.

[Guisslapp]

I am not a virologist, but here goes anyway...

seems to me that a virus seeks a host where it can thrive and then spread to other hosts. Using this China virus as an example, we have Verison 1 (Ver 1) that escapes China (Wuhan Lab) and starts to spread. As long as Ver 1 can find suitable hosts it is happy and has no reason to mutate. Eventually its success will lead to "herd immunity" and compounding the problem for it are those vaxxed against Ver 1. The China virus sees its days numbered as Ver 1, so it mutates. But not because of the unvaxxed where Ver 1 is still effective, but rather because of the vaxxed and those with natural immunity. So from a process similar to natural selection, a Ver 2 (Delta) emerges and finds new life which can now infect more hosts, including those with a measure of defense against its former self, Ver 1.

Seems logical to me that it is the vaccines, the vaxxed, and those with natural immunity, that has caused the China virus to have to mutate just to survive. Of course, a virus is not a living thing (like bacteria is) and it just kind of bumps along through the world like driftwood in a swift flood, seeking to hold on wherever it can. This is not part of some grand plan hatched by the virus, it is just...the way viruses work.

Not exactly. Viruses mutate very easily and it is the replication in a host cell that causes mutation. Thus, the real driver of mutation in viruses is transmission itself. The more people that get it, the more opportunity to mutate. The more opportunity to mutate, the more mutations, giving rise to more transmissible variants.

That is not to say it’s evolution isn’t Darwinian - it is. The viral mutations that lead to better replication will become the dominant one, all else being equal. It is at this stage, and after “immunity” (in this case meaning the presence of effective antibodies for the particular virus) across the population is high where the immunity allows for the preferential domination by variants that defeat this immunity.

But if you have the immunity, the virus is less likely to use YOU as the host that produces the new mutation in the first place.

But that doe