Kyrie Irving's Position Not Anti-Vaccine, Wants To Challenge A Perceived Control Of Society

Moderators: bwgood77, Domejandro

User avatar
ccvle
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,968
And1: 1,426
Joined: Aug 03, 2002

Re: Kyrie Irving's Position Not Anti-Vaccine, Wants To Challenge A Perceived Control Of Society 

Post#141 » by ccvle » Thu Oct 14, 2021 1:12 am

slay25 wrote:
br7knicks wrote:
ccvle wrote:

I understand that. That is more a trust issue. But what I'm seeing from the anti-vax crowd is that most of them would question the data from the gov't/pharmaceutical companies and come up with some ridiculous claims, like the vaccine is more dangerous than the covid itself. I mean I understand why some people are skeptical of the gov't and big pharmas, but then where exactly are the anti-vax crowd getting their information ? It is one thing to say I just don't trust xyz, then to make up some claims that have no basis or proven to be false.


i agree. from what i've learned from anti-vax people is that their claims are either nonsensical, sensationalized, or conjured up.


from what i understand, most people that are against this vaccine are people who have a strong immune system, and would rather let their own body take control over it.

as someone with bad asthma, who gets the flu shot every year and got the covid vaccine, that choice is not for me. but i completely understand why some people do not need it, or feel that it's not necessary for them.

i also absolutely stand behind them and not trusting the government, as they have historically not had our best interest in mind, generally. i also trust them less as they continue to work with pharmaceutical companies, who have even less interest in our well-being than the government.


i am against the vaccine for my personal body. not "anti vax". but i'm beginning to be more so. none of it is because of wacky youtube videos. just like all those pharma commercials where the side effects seem to be worse than the thing the drug is curing, i would rather get covid because I am healthy and in the sun often and active and eat right. the vaccine has side effects that, even if they are rare, are way more intimidating to me. way rather lose my smell for two weeks than potentially deal with heart issues the rest of my life. i'll take my chances with covid.


update: let me just add that while I disagree with your logic, it is not to the point where I feel your are tin foil hat crazy.

Not sure if I agree with the reasonableness of your logic. I understand you are in the low risk demo group. If you are in your 20s, the chances of dying from covid i think is less than .2%. Lets say assuming you are healthy, in good shape, with no pre existing medical conditions, the chances of death is 10x even less likely (.02%). I'm not sure if even you would argue that the death rate of vaccine related death is any where close to .02%. FDA reported the chances blood cloth and heart complications caused by the vaccine is 1 in a million (.0001%) and the chances of nerve damage caused by the vaccine is 20 in 12 million (.00016%). I'm pretty sure even at the 20 year age group, the potential long term side effects (kidney damage, heart complications,etc) are much much higher than .0001% for people who got covid.
KingElessar
Ballboy
Posts: 27
And1: 5
Joined: Sep 29, 2020
     

Re: Kyrie Irving's Position Not Anti-Vaccine, Wants To Challenge A Perceived Control Of Society 

Post#142 » by KingElessar » Thu Oct 14, 2021 1:17 am

Sure. But did you ever start thinking how about the people around you? Those relatives, friends, or just random strangers that you cross paths each day when you go out and take a walk in the park, or the grocery? This is bigger than yourself. If you protect yourself, you're also protecting your family and community. Plus, you're 80%-90% more likely to get and die from covid, than those reported side effects from vaccines. Hope you can rethink this.

slay25 wrote:
br7knicks wrote:
ccvle wrote:

I understand that. That is more a trust issue. But what I'm seeing from the anti-vax crowd is that most of them would question the data from the gov't/pharmaceutical companies and come up with some ridiculous claims, like the vaccine is more dangerous than the covid itself. I mean I understand why some people are skeptical of the gov't and big pharmas, but then where exactly are the anti-vax crowd getting their information ? It is one thing to say I just don't trust xyz, then to make up some claims that have no basis or proven to be false.


i agree. from what i've learned from anti-vax people is that their claims are either nonsensical, sensationalized, or conjured up.


from what i understand, most people that are against this vaccine are people who have a strong immune system, and would rather let their own body take control over it.

as someone with bad asthma, who gets the flu shot every year and got the covid vaccine, that choice is not for me. but i completely understand why some people do not need it, or feel that it's not necessary for them.

i also absolutely stand behind them and not trusting the government, as they have historically not had our best interest in mind, generally. i also trust them less as they continue to work with pharmaceutical companies, who have even less interest in our well-being than the government.


i am against the vaccine for my personal body. not "anti vax". but i'm beginning to be more so. none of it is because of wacky youtube videos. just like all those pharma commercials where the side effects seem to be worse than the thing the drug is curing, i would rather get covid because I am healthy and in the sun often and active and eat right. the vaccine has side effects that, even if they are rare, are way more intimidating to me. way rather lose my smell for two weeks than potentially deal with heart issues the rest of my life. i'll take my chances with covid.
MagicFan101
RealGM
Posts: 10,470
And1: 6,038
Joined: Jul 04, 2012
 

Re: Kyrie Irving's Position Not Anti-Vaccine, Wants To Challenge A Perceived Control Of Society 

Post#143 » by MagicFan101 » Thu Oct 14, 2021 1:18 am

Why does everyone keep making this about the media and talking heads? Why does everyone keep injecting nonsense in place of actual results publicly available?

Here are results from a recent efficacy study of the Pfizer Vaccine. Focus your time on researching actual facts as I have provided here rather than listening to random gossip media or opinion news.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1.full.pdf
Gooner
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,792
And1: 5,208
Joined: Sep 02, 2018
 

Re: Kyrie Irving's Position Not Anti-Vaccine, Wants To Challenge A Perceived Control Of Society 

Post#144 » by Gooner » Thu Oct 14, 2021 8:03 am

lonea wrote:No such thing as god bruh

Gooner wrote:
FreeBoosie wrote:I'm not an anti vaccine person but I already know one guy died from it in my gym but everyone is scared to talk about it however his best friend told me that it was shortly after getting vaccinated he started coughing up blood. Maybe a coincidence but who knows. I'm just waiting on some additional research to be done. In NYC if u don't have vaccine you can't go in so I stopped going to my gym and rather spend that time playing ball for exercise.
History repeating itself here. I stand with Kyrie and other "woke idiots" as some of you may call us. Keep believing the media and following the herd. And then we wonder how citizens on mass scale were cool with German army throwing people in concentration camps, how the Americans were cool throwing their Japanese American neighbors in concentration camps during WW2 and why Iraq invasion which made absolute no sense was carried out with little to no opposition. Fear works and preech something 24/7 in media and people will eat it up.


History is always repeating itself and people never learn. God is watching and will make everyone pay for their actions.


Yes, God is not a thing.
nedleeds
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,938
And1: 5,025
Joined: Dec 25, 2016
Location: Bridgeport, NY
Contact:
       

Re: Kyrie Irving's Position Not Anti-Vaccine, Wants To Challenge A Perceived Control Of Society 

Post#145 » by nedleeds » Thu Oct 14, 2021 2:57 pm

lonea wrote:Actually no.

If you work in the field that require you to have trust in it but you don't, you should be be fired. No question asked.

Your personal choice & believes < hundred of years of science advancement.

The "disproportionately black people" can get their asses to get vaccinated like the rest of us.

nedleeds wrote:
lonea wrote:Majority of the ppl hospitalized are unvaccinated. The science and data back this up.

You know why nurses, Doctors are overworked, overstressed? Because of these unvaccinated dumbasses.

You know why surgeries are getting postponed? Because of these unvaccinated dumbasses.

You know who needs to take care of these unvaccinated dumbasses? Nurses, Doctors.

You know who also treats the vaccinated people? Nurses, Doctors.

If you think your unvaccinated ass isn't affecting vaccinated, you are just a selfish prick.

Lastly, don't even pretend you are "educated" on this matter. Because you are not.


But we're firing these same MDs and nurses with higher measurable immunity in their semi-quant and t-cell ab tests than people 6 months removed from Pfizer 2nd dose?

:clown: :clown: :clown:

No sane human doesn't think having immunity in your healthcare staff is a must. The sane people are staring at mass firings of healthy hard working people who had covid already and wonder wtf. The fact that this will disproportionately impact black people is icing on the cake, 28% of Black New Yorkers between the ages of 18 and 44 are fully vaccinated. Meaning more of them will get fired, strange the normal brigade of ambulance chasers aren't yelling systemic racism here.


You seem smart. What does the vaccine do? What is it's intended result? What clinical results were measured (besides AEs) to authorize the EUAs? Do think the vaccines create magic forcefields? Vaccine faeries that ward off evil covid demons?
Zenzibar wrote:Nevertheless, Payton is not a finished product yet and unless the team moves him in a couple of weeks, I anticipate him trending upward with this coaching staff.
lonea
Senior
Posts: 591
And1: 222
Joined: Jan 16, 2012

Re: Kyrie Irving's Position Not Anti-Vaccine, Wants To Challenge A Perceived Control Of Society 

Post#146 » by lonea » Thu Oct 14, 2021 3:06 pm

I'll make it simple and sweet for you.

The intention for the vaccine is to make hospitalization rate low.

Not going to argue with you whether vaccines work or not, because they clearly do.

Or maybe you don't know the purpose of the vaccine?

nedleeds wrote:
lonea wrote:Actually no.

If you work in the field that require you to have trust in it but you don't, you should be be fired. No question asked.

Your personal choice & believes < hundred of years of science advancement.

The "disproportionately black people" can get their asses to get vaccinated like the rest of us.

nedleeds wrote:
But we're firing these same MDs and nurses with higher measurable immunity in their semi-quant and t-cell ab tests than people 6 months removed from Pfizer 2nd dose?

:clown: :clown: :clown:

No sane human doesn't think having immunity in your healthcare staff is a must. The sane people are staring at mass firings of healthy hard working people who had covid already and wonder wtf. The fact that this will disproportionately impact black people is icing on the cake, 28% of Black New Yorkers between the ages of 18 and 44 are fully vaccinated. Meaning more of them will get fired, strange the normal brigade of ambulance chasers aren't yelling systemic racism here.


You seem smart. What does the vaccine do? What is it's intended result? What clinical results were measured (besides AEs) to authorize the EUAs? Do think the vaccines create magic forcefields? Vaccine faeries that ward off evil covid demons?
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 10,095
And1: 5,868
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: Kyrie Irving's Position Not Anti-Vaccine, Wants To Challenge A Perceived Control Of Society 

Post#147 » by trex_8063 » Thu Oct 14, 2021 3:15 pm

Black Jack wrote:
GameChannel wrote:I call BS on him being not anti-Vaxx. Vaccines have been available since late last year. Mandates only came out last month. If he wasn't anti-Vaxx, he would have already taken the vaccine long ago. Dude is trying to hide behind the whole mandate issue as an excuse not to take the vaccine like the majority of the far right clowns. BS.


Does this vaccine stop the virus?

Hey, tell me this why did the CDC change the definition of vaccine on it's website then? https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article254111268.html

These vaccines for covid are really immune system boosters. Turns out that now according to the CDC that word vaccine, it does not mean what society used to mean.


Reading stuff like this is so frustrating.

Firstly, the skeptics referred to in the article have it completely wrong when they "speculated that the unannounced changes were the CDC's attempt to hide the fact Covid-19 vaccinations are not 100% effective...."

To the contrary, the new wording---which applies to ALL vaccines, btw, not just the Covid vaccine [really cannot overstate that]---would seem to be acknowledging that vaccines [without exception] are not 100% effective, not hiding it.

I've already stated to this effect, but it's worth repeating. So I'll explicitly state it again because it obviously needs emphasis.....
FACT: no vaccine is 100% effective in preventing the targeted disease [though there are a few that come really damn close].

So the Covid vax is nothing new in this regard.


So why did they bother changing the language of their definitions?
Probably because no one had a problem with the way it was written until now: with a disease that has been highly politicized.

That no vaccine has ever been 100% effective was never a sticking point with the previous definition [which had probably been there for decades]; was never used as a "Gotcha!" in attempt to undermine the credibility of the CDS......until crazy Covid times.

Obviously the hope or intent of vaccines is to "produce immunity"----and with most vaccines it does just that for a great number of individuals; and for the vast majority of the remainder it will greatly reduce the likelihood that exposure will lead to infection and/or cause any clinical disease to be more mild than it otherwise would have been.

But the prior definition didn't stipulate "intent" or "hope"......it just said "to produce immunity" (seeming to imply that would be the outcome). Nor did it acknowledge that in some instances it will merely "reduce likelihood" and/or "reduce severity of disease", etc.
fwiw, including all potential outcomes, with indications of probabilities of each, would get a little wordy for a definition anyway [definitions err toward concise [NON-exhaustive] explanations].

And while the prior definition----which [again: cannot overstate this] applies to ALL vaccines, and had been in place for years without issue----was perhaps lacking in terms of strict semantic accuracy, I don't think it was written in bad faith.

But now that such things are being attacked by the anti-vax crowd, they likely felt they needed to alter it into something that is more semantically precise (thus "protection" instead of the more definitive-sounding "immunity"), in order to protect their credibility from such attacks.
As it turns out, it hasn't worked: above crowd still attacking after making it more semantically accurate. Damned if they do, damned if they don't, I guess.


But your calling it an "immune booster" seems to be implying it's like having a fruit smoothy with ginseng and echinacea........which is a grotesquely inaccurate depiction, and not at all what the CDC is trying to say.
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." -George Carlin

"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
nedleeds
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,938
And1: 5,025
Joined: Dec 25, 2016
Location: Bridgeport, NY
Contact:
       

Re: Kyrie Irving's Position Not Anti-Vaccine, Wants To Challenge A Perceived Control Of Society 

Post#148 » by nedleeds » Thu Oct 14, 2021 3:38 pm

lonea wrote:I'll make it simple and sweet for you.

The intention for the vaccine is to make hospitalization rate low.

Not going to argue with you whether vaccines work or not, because they clearly do.

Or maybe you don't know the purpose of the vaccine?

nedleeds wrote:
lonea wrote:Actually no.

If you work in the field that require you to have trust in it but you don't, you should be be fired. No question asked.

Your personal choice & believes < hundred of years of science advancement.

The "disproportionately black people" can get their asses to get vaccinated like the rest of us.



You seem smart. What does the vaccine do? What is it's intended result? What clinical results were measured (besides AEs) to authorize the EUAs? Do think the vaccines create magic forcefields? Vaccine faeries that ward off evil covid demons?


I'm pro-vaccine. They work. I live every day in lab and healthcare data.

I'm asking you if you actually know what the residual output of Pfizer (Comirnaty) is? They do work. But you don't even know how.

"The intention for the vaccine is to make hospitalization rate low. "

No it isn't. There's nothing in the EUA or the clinical trial protocol for hospitalization. That's not how it was granted an EUA and now full FDA approval. The intention for the vaccine is to provoke the patients immune system into creating residual ABs with a profile matching or nearly matching the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
Zenzibar wrote:Nevertheless, Payton is not a finished product yet and unless the team moves him in a couple of weeks, I anticipate him trending upward with this coaching staff.

Return to Wiretap Discussion