Packers Huddle

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

21 Jun 2021 21:35

Raptorman wrote: ↑

21 Jun 2021 21:16

I see, so the immunity that the body gives us for actually having the virus isn't as good as the vaccine? ...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/06/21/fact-check-vaccines-offer-safe-consistent-protection-covid-19/7609402002/ wrote:"We need robust clinical trials measuring reinfection rates in people who received the vaccine compared to those who got COVID-19 and recovered to really conclude whether or not there is a relevant difference," Cynthia Anne Leifer, an immunology and microbiology professor at Cornell University's College of Veterinary Medicine, said in an email. "Those trials are ongoing, so time will tell."

About 0.4 percent of patients who previously tested positive for COVID-19 tested positive again after 90 days, according to Epic Health Research Network data released April 23.

Researchers at the Verona, Wis.-based company analyzed lab test data from 98 healthcare organizations covering 63 million patients. According to the CDC, a positive test within 90 days of initial onset of illness is more likely to represent continued viral shedding than reinfection, so researchers focused on results after 90 days.

Epic data found 396,883 patients who had at least one positive result, and 37,489 patients who had two or more positive test results during the study. Only 0.4 percent of the patients, or 1,601 patients, had a subsequent positive test at least 90 days after their initial positive test, indicating possible reinfection.

Of the 1,601 patients, 496 were admitted to the hospital within 21 days of their most recent positive test and 54 died within 21 days of their most recent positive test. The researchers believe the COVID-19 patients with hospital admissions or deaths may be more likely to represent true reinfections.

Subsequent positive COVID-19 tests could be due to residual shedding, actual reinfection or other reasons that require more analysis. The Epic findings do not consider genomic sequencing data.

Results: Among the 52238 included employees, 1359 (53%) of 2579 previously infected subjects remained unvaccinated, compared with 22777 (41%) of 49659 not previously infected. The cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection remained almost zero among previously infected unvaccinated subjects, previously infected subjects who were vaccinated, and previously uninfected subjects who were vaccinated, compared with a steady increase in cumulative incidence among previously uninfected subjects who remained unvaccinated. Not one of the 1359 previously infected subjects who remained unvaccinated had a SARS-CoV-2 infection over the duration of the study. In a Cox proportional hazards regression model, after adjusting for the phase of the epidemic, vaccination was associated with a significantly lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among those not previously infected (HR 0.031, 95% CI 0.015 to 0.061) but not among those previously infected (HR 0.313, 95% CI 0 to Infinity).

Conclusions: Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before.

go pak go wrote: ↑

22 Jun 2021 09:27

The whole "those people" isolated on a macro level is a dumb argument.

Absolutely. If you have any higher risk or had a bad reaction don't take it. But that is likely going to be 5% to 10% of the population; max.

On a macro level, if we can even reach 70% vaccination levels this thing will be under control. Look already at the continuing decline and control of the virus in a matter of months. I don't have to wear masks anywhere I go anymore. It is so cool! Like we have come so far in just 90 days.

So absolutely if you have good reason to not get the vaccine, don't take it. But those people should be such a small part of the population that it really wouldn't impact anything on a large scale. The larger issue is convincing that last 20% to 30% of people who should take the vaccine but refuse to for non medical reasons. And the hysteria against them isn't because of anything personal, but instead because 20% to 30% of the population is large enough to where it could still create a hot bed of spread.

Like I don't look at anyone and get afraid they will spread it to me. I never worried about that at all the last 15 months. Instead what I worry about is they simply spread it in general raising the macro risk for everyone which means more work in containing it. And more work containing it means lower quality of life, lower revenue and lost jobs.

That's my guess what the NFL is looking at here. I believe I heard the NFL wants teams to be at 80% vax rates. So even the NFL isn't planning or assuming for 100%.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

22 Jun 2021 09:41

go pak go wrote: ↑

22 Jun 2021 09:27

The whole "those people" isolated on a macro level is a dumb argument.

Absolutely. If you have any higher risk or had a bad reaction don't take it. But that is likely going to be 5% to 10% of the population; max.

On a macro level, if we can even reach 70% vaccination levels this thing will be under control. Look already at the continuing decline and control of the virus in a matter of months. I don't have to wear masks anywhere I go anymore. It is so cool! Like we have come so far in just 90 days.

So absolutely if you have good reason to not get the vaccine, don't take it. But those people should be such a small part of the population that it really wouldn't impact anything on a large scale. The larger issue is convincing that last 20% to 30% of people who should take the vaccine but refuse to for non medical reasons. And the hysteria against them isn't because of anything personal, but instead because 20% to 30% of the population is large enough to where it could still create a hot bed of spread.

Like I don't look at anyone and get afraid they will spread it to me. I never worried about that at all the last 15 months. Instead what I worry about is they simply spread it in general raising the macro risk for everyone which means more work in containing it. And more work containing it means lower quality of life, lower revenue and lost jobs.

That's my guess what the NFL is looking at here. I believe I heard the NFL wants teams to be at 80% vax rates. So even the NFL isn't planning or assuming for 100%.

thats actually not what im talking about. Im not talking about the arc of covid at a population level. Im saying if you have three guys on a team whose doctor has advised them not to take the vaccine, is the NFL going to make them workout seperately, not be allowed to use the sauna, have to eat seperately for the whole year? forever? etc etc.

The lives of those three hypothetical players matter. Wonder if there will be exemptions for those situations.

Yoop wrote: ↑

22 Jun 2021 10:05

The 6 reasons Americans aren’t getting vaccinated

https://www.vox.com/2021/6/2/22463223/c ... easons-why

Reason 3: Vaccine side effects
For some, the concern is the vaccine itself — and particularly the side effects that can come with it. These concerns can be about something the vaccine really causes, like a day or two of aches, fever, and fatigue or, in extremely rare cases, potentially blood clots. But they can also be about things that aren’t real or proven, like other long-term health risks or unproven claims about, for example, infertility.

Some of this comes down to getting the right information to the vaccine hesitant. Officials, media, and experts can continue to communicate that side effects are almost all mild and don’t last very long — and are, in fact, a sign the vaccines are working and getting the immune system going. And while wilder ideas spread on social media, there’s no evidence that the vaccines have worse side effects in all but very rare circumstances. Blood clots, for example, were found in only 28 of 8.7 million people who got the Johnson & Johnson shot at the time of reporting, and they haven’t been found in anyone who got the Moderna or Pfizer shots.

But there are more practical considerations as well. Some people focused on side effects might worry, for example, that a day or two of fatigue and fever will keep them out of work — putting their job at risk or, at the very least, costing them pay that’s needed for bills. Fixing that will simply require getting more employers to offer paid time off or a bonus not just for getting the shot but the recovery period too.

the risk of bad side affects are minimal compared to contracting the virus for yourself and anyone you come into contact with.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

22 Jun 2021 10:14

I know of at least 5 people who take covid very seriously and still wear their masks who wish they could take the vaccine, but have been told by their doctors that a flair up of their issue may be a greater threat to their health than covid, and they have been advised not to take it.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

22 Jun 2021 10:14

Yoop wrote: ↑

22 Jun 2021 10:05

The 6 reasons Americans aren’t getting vaccinated

https://www.vox.com/2021/6/2/22463223/c ... easons-why

Reason 3: Vaccine side effects
For some, the concern is the vaccine itself — and particularly the side effects that can come with it. These concerns can be about something the vaccine really causes, like a day or two of aches, fever, and fatigue or, in extremely rare cases, potentially blood clots. But they can also be about things that aren’t real or proven, like other long-term health risks or unproven claims about, for example, infertility.

Some of this comes down to getting the right information to the vaccine hesitant. Officials, media, and experts can continue to communicate that side effects are almost all mild and don’t last very long — and are, in fact, a sign the vaccines are working and getting the immune system going. And while wilder ideas spread on social media, there’s no evidence that the vaccines have worse side effects in all but very rare circumstances. Blood clots, for example, were found in only 28 of 8.7 million people who got the Johnson & Johnson shot at the time of reporting, and they haven’t been found in anyone who got the Moderna or Pfizer shots.

But there are more practical considerations as well. Some people focused on side effects might worry, for example, that a day or two of fatigue and fever will keep them out of work — putting their job at risk or, at the very least, costing them pay that’s needed for bills. Fixing that will simply require getting more employers to offer paid time off or a bonus not just for getting the shot but the recovery period too.

the risk of bad side affects are minimal compared to contracting the virus for yourself and anyone you come into contact with.

No. Im not talking about side effects that last a few days. There are real doctors who are very good at their jobs, of fair mind, and carry pure intentions that are advising their patients who have autoimmune issues to not take the vaccine. No one with autoimmune issues was included in any of the trials. The mRna structure of the vaccine can go pick fights with issues and weaknesses in the body from people whose body tells them to go pick fights with things that it should not.

You are assuming everyone is being told it is safe, and people just arent taking it because they dont want to be sick for a few days. I am talking about people who have legitimately been told by their doctors that the mRna style vaccine may not be safe for them. I know of at least 5 people who take covid very seriously and still wear their masks who wish they could take the vaccine, but have been told by their doctors that a flair up of their issue may be a greater threat to their health than covid, and they have been advised not to take it. This is not a large percentage of the population, but it is far greater than 0.

In terms of the nfl, I am wondering if a player presents evidence their doctor has advised against it, how long will they be treated like a lepor.

"the risk of bad side affects are minimal compared to contracting the virus for yourself and anyone you come into contact with."

You have no idea if this is true or not, especially considering for most healthy young people who are not obese, covid is of minimal risk. That was just a line of propaganda.

Yoop wrote: ↑

22 Jun 2021 11:09

when A football player like Beasly complains about people taking his rights away, my first question obviously is what about the rights of players or other people he'll come in contact with that could get very sick or even die from exposure to his possible a symtomatic carrying of the virus, the league is attempting to protect all the players, it can't make exceptions for the Beasly's of the league.

Cdragon wrote: ↑

22 Jun 2021 11:21

Drj820 wrote: ↑

22 Jun 2021 10:14

Yoop wrote: ↑

22 Jun 2021 10:05

The 6 reasons Americans aren’t getting vaccinated

https://www.vox.com/2021/6/2/22463223/c ... easons-why

Reason 3: Vaccine side effects
For some, the concern is the vaccine itself — and particularly the side effects that can come with it. These concerns can be about something the vaccine really causes, like a day or two of aches, fever, and fatigue or, in extremely rare cases, potentially blood clots. But they can also be about things that aren’t real or proven, like other long-term health risks or unproven claims about, for example, infertility.

Some of this comes down to getting the right information to the vaccine hesitant. Officials, media, and experts can continue to communicate that side effects are almost all mild and don’t last very long — and are, in fact, a sign the vaccines are working and getting the immune system going. And while wilder ideas spread on social media, there’s no evidence that the vaccines have worse side effects in all but very rare circumstances. Blood clots, for example, were found in only 28 of 8.7 million people who got the Johnson & Johnson shot at the time of reporting, and they haven’t been found in anyone who got the Moderna or Pfizer shots.

But there are more practical considerations as well. Some people focused on side effects might worry, for example, that a day or two of fatigue and fever will keep them out of work — putting their job at risk or, at the very least, costing them pay that’s needed for bills. Fixing that will simply require getting more employers to offer paid time off or a bonus not just for getting the shot but the recovery period too.

the risk of bad side affects are minimal compared to contracting the virus for yourself and anyone you come into contact with.

No. Im not talking about side effects that last a few days. There are real doctors who are very good at their jobs, of fair mind, and carry pure intentions that are advising their patients who have autoimmune issues to not take the vaccine. No one with autoimmune issues was included in any of the trials. The mRna structure of the vaccine can go pick fights with issues and weaknesses in the body from people whose body tells them to go pick fights with things that it should not.

You are assuming everyone is being told it is safe, and people just arent taking it because they dont want to be sick for a few days. I am talking about people who have legitimately been told by their doctors that the mRna style vaccine may not be safe for them. I know of at least 5 people who take covid very seriously and still wear their masks who wish they could take the vaccine, but have been told by their doctors that a flair up of their issue may be a greater threat to their health than covid, and they have been advised not to take it. This is not a large percentage of the population, but it is far greater than 0.

In terms of the nfl, I am wondering if a player presents evidence their doctor has advised against it, how long will they be treated like a lepor.

"the risk of bad side affects are minimal compared to contracting the virus for yourself and anyone you come into contact with."

You have no idea if this is true or not, especially considering for most healthy young people who are not obese, covid is of minimal risk. That was just a line of propaganda.

How many NFL players are out there with Autoimmune issues?
I know a family, Grandmother, Mother, and Daughter who are allergic to the suspension medium that the vax comes in. Should they get the shot? No and they are not going to. It doesn't stop them from spouting ridiculous anti vax propadanda though.
The CDC has changed their guidelines but individual businesses can still require their employees to wear masks. NFL teams have curfews. Demanding certain obligations from players will always be there to try and win a game. The object of the protocols is to keep the team healthy but it is also to hassle the players enough that they will get their shot. As the weeks roll on and everyday testing and masks become the grind more guys will opt for a shot and freedom.

go pak go wrote: ↑

22 Jun 2021 12:51

Yoop wrote: ↑

22 Jun 2021 11:09

when A football player like Beasly complains about people taking his rights away, my first question obviously is what about the rights of players or other people he'll come in contact with that could get very sick or even die from exposure to his possible a symtomatic carrying of the virus, the league is attempting to protect all the players, it can't make exceptions for the Beasly's of the league.

This I agree with.

Sounds like Beasley doesn't have any higher health risks for why he isn't taking the vaccine, but rather he just "feels" not taking it is best for him.

If that's truly what it is, then I think the NFL has the right to say no vax no play. Because as you state, Cole is taking the rights of being healthy from other people as he could be a spreader. The only caveat I have here again is the vaccine was issued via emergency issuance and I therefore do have a sliver of sympathy for people who are leary without the usual years of time required to clear these drugs.

But it's also not like this vaccine hasn't gone through rigorous clinical trials.

Yoop wrote: ↑

22 Jun 2021 13:31

go pak go wrote: ↑

22 Jun 2021 12:51

Yoop wrote: ↑

22 Jun 2021 11:09

when A football player like Beasly complains about people taking his rights away, my first question obviously is what about the rights of players or other people he'll come in contact with that could get very sick or even die from exposure to his possible a symtomatic carrying of the virus, the league is attempting to protect all the players, it can't make exceptions for the Beasly's of the league.

This I agree with.

Sounds like Beasley doesn't have any higher health risks for why he isn't taking the vaccine, but rather he just "feels" not taking it is best for him.

If that's truly what it is, then I think the NFL has the right to say no vax no play. Because as you state, Cole is taking the rights of being healthy from other people as he could be a spreader. The only caveat I have here again is the vaccine was issued via emergency issuance and I therefore do have a sliver of sympathy for people who are leary without the usual years of time required to clear these drugs.

But it's also not like this vaccine hasn't gone through rigorous clinical trials.

yep, this vaccine has been under very tight scrutiny, when people say it needs more testing, more time to be sure of the side affects, it's mostly just a excuse not to take it.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

22 Jun 2021 13:32

Yoop wrote: ↑

22 Jun 2021 13:31

go pak go wrote: ↑

22 Jun 2021 12:51

This I agree with.

Sounds like Beasley doesn't have any higher health risks for why he isn't taking the vaccine, but rather he just "feels" not taking it is best for him.

If that's truly what it is, then I think the NFL has the right to say no vax no play. Because as you state, Cole is taking the rights of being healthy from other people as he could be a spreader. The only caveat I have here again is the vaccine was issued via emergency issuance and I therefore do have a sliver of sympathy for people who are leary without the usual years of time required to clear these drugs.

But it's also not like this vaccine hasn't gone through rigorous clinical trials.

yep, this vaccine has been under very tight scrutiny, when people say it needs more testing, more time to be sure of the side affects, it's mostly just a excuse not to take it.

eye roll

Yoop wrote: ↑

22 Jun 2021 13:37

Drj820 wrote: ↑

22 Jun 2021 13:32

Yoop wrote: ↑

22 Jun 2021 13:31

yep, this vaccine has been under very tight scrutiny, when people say it needs more testing, more time to be sure of the side affects, it's mostly just a excuse not to take it.

eye roll

what proof do you have to refute what I just said? seriously if you have evidence of young people having heart problems or any other health issues as a result of taking the vaccines I'd be happy to read about it.