Must be vaccinated to go to Bills game

[IDBillzFan]

34 minutes ago, Figster said:

How does taking preventive measures to protect ones self from bodily harm relate to after the fact insurance?

 

Exactly.

[LB3]

2 minutes ago, GG1 said:

 

Back of the envelope math says you're there.  Even with the evil delta running around NYS, the Erie County new case count is 50% of where it was in April and 25%-30% of where it was in the winter.

 

I'm guessing more data points that Hap ignores.

I always loved how health experts became health "experts" when they didn't align with her beliefs or politics.

[Ann]

9 minutes ago, Figster said:

I know its not exactly what you said, but lives saved vs lives lost is very lopsided Ann

 

I think the same can be said about the vaccinated, and those who are not.

I think adults should make their own choices, and parents should make informed choices for their children. It is not up to me, you, a football team, or the government to dictate what people should do with their lives and bodies, especially when this jab has no long term studies.

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

At what point do we just accept that COVID isn't pandemic, it's now endemic, and simply live with it?

[Figster]

1 minute ago, GG1 said:

 

Back of the envelope math says you're there.  Even with the evil delta running around NYS, the Erie County new case count is 50% of where it was in April and 25%-30% of where it was in the winter.

 

I'm guessing more data points that Hap ignores.

Well Hap did ignore my comment earlier without challenging it. 

 

This is a push to try to get more people vaccinated. I realize it seems unjust, perhaps in many ways its true. Myself personally, I have no problem being part of the number that brings us closer to herd immunity. To help protect those of you who choose not to be vaccinated.

 

We're close as a nation, but not there yet...

[Spartacus]

5 hours ago, GG1 said:

 

What's it like to live life in a hermetically sealed bubble?   Why get the vaccine if you're not protected from contracting the virus?

Every empirical scientist knows that the jab was only to reduce symptoms 

for a death plague that 98.97% recover from

 

vaxxed are more likely to spread the Delta since the jab does not eradicate it

[GG1]

1 minute ago, Spartacus said:

Every empirical scientist knows that the jab was only to reduce symptoms 

for a death plague that 98.97% recover from

 

vaxxed are more likely to spread the Delta since the jab does not eradicate it

 

Speaking of data manipulation.    You and Hap would make a great pair.

[Spartacus]

4 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Monkey said:

At what point do we just accept that COVID isn't pandemic, it's now endemic, and simply live with it?

it's as endemic as the cold and flu

you would get similar "cases" if you subjected those plagues to PCR tests at ridiculous cycle counts 

[Figster]

1 minute ago, GG1 said:

 

Speaking of data manipulation.    You and Hap would make a great pair.

Post of the day right here, lol

[GG1]

7 minutes ago, Figster said:

Well Hap did ignore my comment earlier without challenging it. 

 

This is a push to try to get more people vaccinated. I realize it seems unjust, perhaps in many ways its true. Myself personally, I have no problem being part of the number that brings us closer to herd immunity. To help protect those of you who choose not to be vaccinated.

 

We're close as a nation, but not there yet...

 

Herd immunity also includes the estimated 100 million who already recovered.

[Figster]

4 minutes ago, GG1 said:

 

Herd immunity also includes the estimated 100 million who already recovered.

Which helps protect against the newer variants.

 

Hopefully in that respect, the fast spreading delta is Covids last stand...

Edited September 15, 2021 by Figster

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

12 minutes ago, GG1 said:

 

Herd immunity also includes the estimated 100 million who already recovered.

 

That's questionable, considering the push to convince recovered COVID patients that they, too, need to be vaccinated.

 

The wonderful thing about COVID policy is that it's such a cockeyed mess that there's something in it for everyone.  Except a morbidity rate.  18 months in to this pandemic, and I still can find a morbidity rate.  

[IDBillzFan]

53 minutes ago, GG1 said:

 

Speaking of data manipulation.    You and Hap would make a great pair.

 

 I suspect Hap is basing her information on all the Covid cases that popped up after the preseason game and Billy Joel concert.

 

Oh, wait. Nevermind.

[snafu]

2 hours ago, Crap Throwing Monkey said:

At what point do we just accept that COVID isn't pandemic, it's now endemic, and simply live with it?

 

NEVER!

So stuff it.

 

2 hours ago, GG1 said:

 

Herd immunity also includes the estimated 100 million who already recovered.

 

We never hear that message.

Though I have heard things like "if you've had Covid, then getting the vaccine is akin to a booster shot".

 

[Figster]

1 hour ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

 I suspect Hap is basing her information on all the Covid cases that popped up after the preseason game and Billy Joel concert.

 

Oh, wait. Nevermind.

Having been on the inside of an off board discussion between Hap and an ATOP patron that released a study recently on large gatherings such as sports events. I can tell you Hap is very much on point with everything Covid as it relates to large gatherings IMO.

 

The patron that posted the study admits the data was early on in the pandemic and out dated. Contrary to what the study indicated the same patron says he himself would not attend games with people who are not vaccinated because of the risk.  

[GG1]

50 minutes ago, Figster said:

Having been on the inside of an off board discussion between Hap and an ATOP patron that released a study recently on large gatherings such as sports events. I can tell you Hap is very much on point with everything Covid as it relates to large gatherings IMO.

 

The patron that posted the study admits the data was early on in the pandemic and out dated. Contrary to what the study indicated the same patron says he himself would not attend games with people who are not vaccinated because of the risk.  

 

Needless to say I have low confidence levels in opinions when someone is pushing a hard viewpoint when the available data contradicts that view point.

 

Here's an embarrassing fact that was exposed by NYT of all people (although David Leonhardt has been a relative voice of reason)

 

When the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released new guidelines last month for mask wearing, it announced that “less than 10 percent” of Covid-19 transmission was occurring outdoors. Media organizations repeated the statistic, and it quickly became a standard description of the frequency of outdoor transmission.

But the number is almost certainly misleading.

It appears to be based partly on a misclassification of some Covid transmission that actually took place in enclosed spaces (as I explain below). An even bigger issue is the extreme caution of C.D.C. officials, who picked a benchmark — 10 percent — so high that nobody could reasonably dispute it.

That benchmark “seems to be a huge exaggeration,” as Dr. Muge Cevik, a virologist at the University of St. Andrews, said. In truth, the share of transmission that has occurred outdoors seems to be below 1 percent and may be below 0.1 percent, multiple epidemiologists told me. The rare outdoor transmission that has happened almost all seems to have involved crowded places or close conversation.

Saying that less than 10 percent of Covid transmission occurs outdoors is akin to saying that sharks attack fewer than 20,000 swimmers a year. (The actual worldwide number is around 150.) It’s both true and deceiving.   There are plenty of other studies that show a risk of outdoor transmissions to be very low, especially if you are double vaxxed.

 

 

[IDBillzFan]

3 minutes ago, GG1 said:

Saying that less than 10 percent of Covid transmission occurs outdoors is akin to saying that sharks attack fewer than 20,000 swimmers a year. (The actual worldwide number is around 150.) It’s both true and deceiving.

 

Having, somewhat regrettably, aspired to be a journalist going into college, and having worked as one for a handful of years out of college, one of the very first things you are taught is how to manipulate readers simply by using the phrases "as many as" and "up to" and "more than" and "less than" when numbers are involved.

 

It didn't matter if you KNEW the actual number. You needed to manipulate the number for the sake of readership interest.

 

When there is a batshitcrazy lunatic gunning people down, intial reports are always started with "As many as XXX have been killed." When there's a protest from leftists, media reports "more than 10,000" were in attendance and when there is a right-wing protest, media reports "less than 5000" were there.

 

When you mix this with the line between imply and infer, it's no wonder most people have no effin' clue what is going on. Unfortunately, that doesn't keep them from pretending that they do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[LB3]

5 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

Having, somewhat regrettably, aspired to be a journalist going into college, and having worked as one for a handful of years out of college, one of the very first things you are taught is how to manipulate readers simply by using the phrases "as many as" and "up to" and "more than" and "less than" when numbers are involved.

 

It didn't matter if you KNEW the actual number. You needed to manipulate the number for the sake of readership interest.

 

When there is a batshitcrazy lunatic gunning people down, intial reports are always started with "As many as XXX have been killed." When there's a protest from leftists, media reports "more than 10,000" were in attendance and when there is a right-wing protest, media reports "less than 5000" were there.

 

When you mix this with the line between imply and infer, it's no wonder most people have no effin' clue what is going on. Unfortunately, that doesn't keep them from pretending that they do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Mostly peaceful"

[Figster]

13 minutes ago, GG1 said:

 

Needless to say I have low confidence levels in opinions when someone is pushing a hard viewpoint when the available data contradicts that view point.

 

Here's an embarrassing fact that was exposed by NYT of all people (although David Leonhardt has been a relative voice of reason)

 

When the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released new guidelines last month for mask wearing, it announced that “less than 10 percent” of Covid-19 transmission was occurring outdoors. Media organizations repeated the statistic, and it quickly became a standard description of the frequency of outdoor transmission.

But the number is almost certainly misleading.

It appears to be based partly on a misclassification of some Covid transmission that actually took place in enclosed spaces (as I explain below). An even bigger issue is the extreme caution of C.D.C. officials, who picked a benchmark — 10 percent — so high that nobody could reasonably dispute it.

That benchmark “seems to be a huge exaggeration,” as Dr. Muge Cevik, a virologist at the University of St. Andrews, said. In truth, the share of transmission that has occurred outdoors seems to be below 1 percent and may be below 0.1 percent, multiple epidemiologists told me. The rare outdoor transmission that has happened almost all seems to have involved crowded places or close conversation.

Saying that less than 10 percent of Covid transmission occurs outdoors is akin to saying that sharks attack fewer than 20,000 swimmers a year. (The actual worldwide number is around 150.) It’s both true and deceiving.   There are plenty of other studies that show a risk of outdoor transmissions to be very low, especially if you are double vaxxed.

 

 

Myself personally, with a mutated variant like the delta variant its hard for me to put to much trust in anything previously recorded.

 

Our children are becoming more susceptible to the virus. When you bring them into the equation anyone under 12 has no protection. I realize it is a parents free choice to bring them to a football game. Myself personally, I would still like to protect them. 

[Ann]

2 minutes ago, Figster said:

Myself personally, with a mutated variant like the delta variant its hard for me to put to much trust in anything previously recorded.

 

Our children are becoming more susceptible to the virus. When you bring them into the equation anyone under 12 has no protection. I realize it is a parents free choice to bring them to a football game. Myself personally, I would still like to protect them. 

 

You cannot bubble wrap anyone unless you want to raise a dysfunctional society.  I understand wanting to, believe me, I do. But it is not good in the long run. These kids have been psychologically abused in the name of "protecting" them, and we have seen a rise in teen suicide due to isolation.

We are at the point when the "cure" is far worse than the disease for nearly everyone, especially children.