NBA protocols/Covid/Vaccine - Discussion thread

[lambchop]

acknowledging first that i don't get why athletes don't get vaxxed,,,,,i find it hilarious that there's an arena(i forget which) where in order to sit in at the floor you needa covid card for the first 4rows but not from the 5th row on back. reminds of back in the day when half the seats in the plane were non-smoking and the other half was smoking. or that in and arena of a few thousand fans screaming their lungs out, the players play w/o masks but put the back on when they sit on the bench ?????

good god, man

Yea all kinds of weird. I can remember when we started practising again in February there were guys on the team that were strictly no physical contact / no shaking hands before or after practice. But during practice it was high fives and hugs after buckets etc. The same thing during the games.

The funniest one to me is still the rule where you put on your mask as your enter a bar or restaurant but can take it off once you pass through the door. And even if youre not wearing it properly, as long as it's visible, for example on your elbow, you're good to go too.

[Da ThRONe]

Your only point is something you never actually dsupoort. You constantly bring up misinformation or misapply the science, when confronted you say the personal freedom is the only thing that matters. But that's not even something you've actually discussed yet.

Where's the line on personal freedom? Should we allow drinking and driving, who are the experts to tell us that's too dangerous? I could have that right, and if I hurt someone then I can deal with the consequences. Do national emergencies (war, natural disaster, pandemics etc...) not change where that line is?

Just like anything else, the spirit of the person or the people is what matters. You either fundamentally believe in individual choice or you don't. No law, no constitution, nothing can protect against those who don't believe in the right of the individual. The entire creation of America was built on the idea of individual rights. Those rights have been eroded and challenged using the very system that they created to avoid this. The founders understood that too. The American constitution was created for a moral and religious people as John Adams stated.

To address your questions directly. That line is generally where you inhibit the freedom of others. Now even that has been twisted to mean that the obligation is on me to protect everyone else from Covid. A clear corruption of the idea of personal freedom. Others have the right to protect themselves as they see fit, blame others for their inability to protect themselves.

It is also falsely assumed in this narrative that unvaxxed = covid positive. Guilty until proven innocent.

And let's be clear. The ONLY reason that this is such a controversial issue is not because of the science, it is because of the use of force to get everyone to mask, vaccinate, close their businesses etc. Those who constantly argue against the current science are really arguing for their right to decide. That's it.

So where does drinking and drinking fall into this? Your not necessarily impacting anyone's freedom when you get behind the wheel intoxicated, you are only increasing your risk of doing so.

Drinking and driving is completely different because we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it impairs a person driving abilities and you can prove someone is intoxicated. There's no discrimination for making choices. Similarly if a person that knows they are infected with a deadly disease and still chooses to go out and public then they should face punishment. But treating every human being that refuses a jab as if they are carriers of a deadly disease is the opposite of freedom. Especially when those who get the jabs are very much capable of carrying that same virus. That makes no sense. If people can be discriminated against based on an assumption where does it end?

[Lalouie]

acknowledging first that i don't get why athletes don't get vaxxed,,,,,i find it hilarious that there's an arena(i forget which) where in order to sit in at the floor you needa covid card for the first 4rows but not from the 5th row on back. reminds of back in the day when half the seats in the plane were non-smoking and the other half was smoking. or that in and arena of a few thousand fans screaming their lungs out, the players play w/o masks but put the back on when they sit on the bench ?????

good god, man

Yea all kinds of weird. I can remember when we started practising again in February there were guys on the team that were strictly no physical contact / no shaking hands before or after practice. But during practice it was high fives and hugs after buckets etc. The same thing during the games.

The funniest one to me is still the rule where you put on your mask as your enter a bar or restaurant but can take it off once you pass through the door. And even if youre not wearing it properly, as long as it's visible, for example on your elbow, you're good to go too.

i think maybe part of the reason anti-vaxers are anti vax is the inconsistancy in logic. they should forget the logic of it and just vax....period

[nikster]

Just like anything else, the spirit of the person or the people is what matters. You either fundamentally believe in individual choice or you don't. No law, no constitution, nothing can protect against those who don't believe in the right of the individual. The entire creation of America was built on the idea of individual rights. Those rights have been eroded and challenged using the very system that they created to avoid this. The founders understood that too. The American constitution was created for a moral and religious people as John Adams stated.

To address your questions directly. That line is generally where you inhibit the freedom of others. Now even that has been twisted to mean that the obligation is on me to protect everyone else from Covid. A clear corruption of the idea of personal freedom. Others have the right to protect themselves as they see fit, blame others for their inability to protect themselves.

It is also falsely assumed in this narrative that unvaxxed = covid positive. Guilty until proven innocent.

And let's be clear. The ONLY reason that this is such a controversial issue is not because of the science, it is because of the use of force to get everyone to mask, vaccinate, close their businesses etc. Those who constantly argue against the current science are really arguing for their right to decide. That's it.

So where does drinking and drinking fall into this? Your not necessarily impacting anyone's freedom when you get behind the wheel intoxicated, you are only increasing your risk of doing so.

Drinking and driving is completely different because we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it impairs a person driving abilities and you can prove someone is intoxicated. There's no discrimination for making choices. Similarly if a person that knows they are infected with a deadly disease and still chooses to go out and public then they should face punishment. But treating every human being that refuses a jab as if they are carriers of a deadly disease is the opposite of freedom. Especially when those who get the jabs is very much capable of carrying that same virus. That makes no sense. If people can be discriminated against based on an assumption where does it end?

We know for a fact that the vaccine makes you less likely to get infected and reduces spread if you do get infected

[The_Hater]

Ahh, so the brand name change was dependent on approval? Why not just change the brand name for all ranges regardless of approval or stage of respective studies?

Well, if you read the CDC quote above, you would know that, "Once vaccines are approved by the FDA, companies can market the vaccines under brand names." Why would you care? Oh wait, I know, IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!

I'm just confirming. I already knew.

If you’re asking questions where you already know the answer, you’re either :

A: lying
B: wasting people’s time just to be a jerk

Tough choice you got there.

[Da ThRONe]

[quote="niks]
So where does drinking and drinking fall into this? Your not necessarily impacting anyone's freedom when you get behind the wheel intoxicated, you are only increasing your risk of doing so.[/quote]

Drinking and driving is completely different because we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it impairs a person driving abilities and you can prove someone is intoxicated. There's no discrimination for making choices. Similarly if a person that knows they are infected with a deadly disease and still chooses to go out and public then they should face punishment. But treating every human being that refuses a jab as if they are carriers of a deadly disease is the opposite of freedom. Especially when those who get the jabs is very much capable of carrying that same virus. That makes no sense. If people can be discriminated against based on an assumption where does it end?[/quote]
We know for a fact that the vaccine makes you less likely to get infected and reduces spread if you do get infected[/quote]

We also know for a fact that it kills people and causes health problems. The question is how much does it help versus how much it hurts. And the reality that people keep dodging for some reason is it's impossible to know at this stage which is which. You have people in the scientific and medical community on both sides making cases for and against these vaccines. However it's only the crowd against the jabs that is dismissed by MSM, by labeling them medical misinfomation. But as we've seen with the lab leak theory what is deemed misinfomation can quickly become the leading theory.

[ItsDanger]

Well, if you read the CDC quote above, you would know that, "Once vaccines are approved by the FDA, companies can market the vaccines under brand names." Why would you care? Oh wait, I know, IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!

I'm just confirming. I already knew.

If you’re asking questions where you already know the answer, you’re either :

A: lying
B: wasting people’s time just to be a jerk

Tough choice you got there.

Or explaining it to others who don't know without being an **** about it. Something you could learn from.

[xdrta+]

If this was already noted somewhere in the previous 80 pages, I apologize, I must have missed it.

Pre-print study that claimed 1 in 1,000 risk of myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccine was withdrawn due to miscalculation
Reuters

A pre-print study which claimed that there is a 1 in 1,000 risk of contracting a heart inflammation condition known as myocarditis has since been retracted due to a calculation.

The study which was conducted by researchers at The University of Ottawa Heart Institute, was featured in numerous blogs and social media posts as proof that the COVID-19 vaccine is unsafe for use.....

The study was first published on September 16 on the platform MedRxiv, a website that publishes studies that have yet to be peer-reviewed....

“Our reported incidence appeared vastly inflated by an incorrectly small denominator (ie number of doses administered over the time period of the study). We reviewed the data available at Open Ottawa and found that there had indeed been a major underestimation, with the actual number of administered doses being more than 800,000. In order to avoid misleading either colleagues or the general public and press, we the authors unanimously wish to withdraw this paper on the grounds of incorrect incidence data”

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-preprint-myocarditiswithdrawn-idUSL1N2QX1WS

[michaelm]

[quote="niks]
So where does drinking and drinking fall into this? Your not necessarily impacting anyone's freedom when you get behind the wheel intoxicated, you are only increasing your risk of doing so.[/quote]

Drinking and driving is completely different because we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it impairs a person driving abilities and you can prove someone is intoxicated. There's no discrimination for making choices. Similarly if a person that knows they are infected with a deadly disease and still chooses to go out and public then they should face punishment. But treating every human being that refuses a jab as if they are carriers of a deadly disease is the opposite of freedom. Especially when those who get the jabs is very much capable of carrying that same virus. That makes no sense. If people can be discriminated against based on an assumption where does it end?[/quote]
We know for a fact that the vaccine makes you less likely to get infected and reduces spread if you do get infected[/quote][/quote][/quote]

We there also know for a fact that it kills people and causes health problems. The question is how much does it help versus how much it hurts. And the reality that people keep dodging for some reason is it's impossible to know at this stage which is which. You have people in the scientific and medical community on both sides making cases for and against these vaccines. However it's only the crowd against the jabs that is dismissed by MSM, by labeling them medical misinfomation. But as we've seen with the lab leak theory what is deemed misinfomation can quickly become the leading theory.[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

As I have posted before there are at least 2 different questions in regard to the issue which are often conflated imo. One is the safety and efficacy of the vaccines, the other what measures are reasonable for the protection of the community in a pandemic and in particular to mandate for individuals.

I agree the second is quite arguable, and imo dependent on how severe a threat the pandemic constitutes. In answer to your previous post I think it was reasonable at some stages to regard everyone as potentially infected/infectious as Rudy Gobert famously demonstrated. Whether that is the case now is a different question, given the myriad stages the pandemic is at and the different approaches in different places. Maybe the whole world is through the worst of it and the delta wave has broken and there won’t be another, but I don’t think anyone can be sure of that. Certainly outcome data will be available from places like Sweden with one approach, Singapore and Israel where vaccination alone didn’t prevent the delta wave but with both having a subgroup of unvaccinated people and both appearing to be having a reasonable outcome with the delta wave, and Australia with likely an extremely high vaccination rate without real unvaccinated subgroups but likely little herd immunity from actual infection. If Sweden’s approach works going forward they may be the best approximation of the USA imo, and they have just removed pretty much all restrictions. I remain of the view that the likes of health and aged care workers should be vaccinated unless and until the virus does go away, and even if it subsided to being as dangerous as the seasonal flu a case might still exist.

It is disinformation to say a vaccine kills people if it doesn’t though, and the myocarditis/pericarditis which is described is usually mild and is rare, significantly rarer than from the infection itself. The viral vector vaccines do occasionally kill people it is true. There doesn't appear to be any reason for the Pfizer vaccine to have long term effects, it has been designed not to have such effects, and I haven’t even seen a viable hypothesis for a mechanism for long term effects.

I am not sure what the current likelihood is that the virus originated from a lab leak, but that was always a possibility which even the group of possibly biased virologists who favoured a completely natural origin at the start of the pandemic did not dismiss.

[nikster]

I'm just confirming. I already knew.

If you’re asking questions where you already know the answer, you’re either :

A: lying
B: wasting people’s time just to be a jerk

Tough choice you got there.

Or explaining it to others who don't know without being an **** about it. Something you could learn from.

asking questions isnt explaining, especially when your actually wrong

[ItsDanger]

If you’re asking questions where you already know the answer, you’re either :

A: lying
B: wasting people’s time just to be a jerk

Tough choice you got there.

Or explaining it to others who don't know without being an **** about it. Something you could learn from.

asking questions isnt explaining, especially when your actually wrong

Don't blame me when posters here can't explain a simple concept in concise terms. Your reply just shows arrogance.

[ZB9]

Ha so basically anything that doesnt fit your covid obsessed narrative is labeled "misinformation", even info from a US Senator? That trend is not conducive to following the science, only political science and emotion.

Anyway, there is a question that I have not yet been able to find a legit answer to. Perhaps someone here can enlighten me? That question is how did flu cases drop by over 98 percent in the US within a year?

Read on Twitter

?s=20

Seasonal flu cases in the U.S.-

2012-2013 - 34,000,000
2013-2014 - 30,000,000
2014-2015 - 30,000,000
2015-2016 - 24,000,000
2016-2017 - 29,000,000
2017-2018 - 45,000,000
2018-2019 - 36,000,000
2019-2020 - 38,000,000
2020-2021 - 2136

Strike: Trolling
You're still spreading nonsense conspiracies? COVID is not the flu, nor were flu patients diagnosed with COVID to buff up COVID's numbers.

[michaelm]

Ha so basically anything that doesnt fit your covid obsessed narrative is labeled "misinformation", even info from a US Senator? That trend is not conducive to following the science, only political science and emotion.

Anyway, there is a question that I have not yet been able to find a legit answer to. Perhaps someone here can enlighten me? That question is how did flu cases drop by over 98 percent in the US within a year?

Read on Twitter

?s=20

Seasonal flu cases in the U.S.-

2012-2013 - 34,000,000
2013-2014 - 30,000,000
2014-2015 - 30,000,000
2015-2016 - 24,000,000
2016-2017 - 29,000,000
2017-2018 - 45,000,000
2018-2019 - 36,000,000
2019-2020 - 38,000,000
2020-2021 - 2136

Perhaps oddly, masking social distancing etc measures that work against a more infectious respiratory virus in Covid work better against influenza.

In Australia at least there was also a bigger push for influenza vaccination last year because it was thought to be not a good idea to catch both.

[ZB9]

Ha so basically anything that doesnt fit your covid obsessed narrative is labeled "misinformation", even info from a US Senator? That trend is not conducive to following the science, only political science and emotion.

Anyway, there is a question that I have not yet been able to find a legit answer to. Perhaps someone here can enlighten me? That question is how did flu cases drop by over 98 percent in the US within a year?

Read on Twitter

?s=20

Seasonal flu cases in the U.S.-

2012-2013 - 34,000,000
2013-2014 - 30,000,000
2014-2015 - 30,000,000
2015-2016 - 24,000,000
2016-2017 - 29,000,000
2017-2018 - 45,000,000
2018-2019 - 36,000,000
2019-2020 - 38,000,000
2020-2021 - 2136

Perhaps oddly, masking social distancing etc measures that work against a more infectious respiratory virus in Covid work better against influenza.

In Australia at least there was also a bigger push for influenza vaccination last year because it was thought to be not a good idea to catch both.

So if 40 to 60 percent of people are wearing masks in public in the US, that would drop influenza by 98 percent?

I doubt that it would drop that much even if 100 percent of people were wearing hazmat suits at all times.

[Cartuse]

Ha so basically anything that doesnt fit your covid obsessed narrative is labeled "misinformation", even info from a US Senator? That trend is not conducive to following the science, only political science and emotion.

Anyway, there is a question that I have not yet been able to find a legit answer to. Perhaps someone here can enlighten me? That question is how did flu cases drop by over 98 percent in the US within a year?

Read on Twitter

?s=20

Seasonal flu cases in the U.S.-

2012-2013 - 34,000,000
2013-2014 - 30,000,000
2014-2015 - 30,000,000
2015-2016 - 24,000,000
2016-2017 - 29,000,000
2017-2018 - 45,000,000
2018-2019 - 36,000,000
2019-2020 - 38,000,000
2020-2021 - 2136

Perhaps oddly, masking social distancing etc measures that work against a more infectious respiratory virus in Covid work better against influenza.

In Australia at least there was also a bigger push for influenza vaccination last year because it was thought to be not a good idea to catch both.

For what is worth, there were several speculative explanations for this months ago when it was first being reported in mainstream media.

If I recall correctly they were saying something about the covid virus like occupying the space for viral load and not letting other viruses in, or something like that, my apologies if I'm butchering the explanation. In any case that explanation was kinda dropped afterwards, and now Scientific American is only citing social distancing measures as the reason for the drop.

There's a bit of a problem with attributing that drop to social distancing and masking though, because that would mean that there was a massive compliance of the rules, to the point of practically erradicating the flu. But the narrative as it goes nowadays is that everything that didn't work out in regards to containing the virus was due to people not complying. But at the same time, there was enough compliance to destroy the flu?

It's certainly not insane for one to think that some flu cases could have been reported as COVID, adding to the whole skepticism regarding the data. Even if it's not the case (and I'm not saying it is) it's easy to see how the narratives bend out of shape sometimes. It's normal that some people might lose their trust in them

[michaelm]

Ha so basically anything that doesnt fit your covid obsessed narrative is labeled "misinformation", even info from a US Senator? That trend is not conducive to following the science, only political science and emotion.

Anyway, there is a question that I have not yet been able to find a legit answer to. Perhaps someone here can enlighten me? That question is how did flu cases drop by over 98 percent in the US within a year?

Read on Twitter

?s=20

Seasonal flu cases in the U.S.-

2012-2013 - 34,000,000
2013-2014 - 30,000,000
2014-2015 - 30,000,000
2015-2016 - 24,000,000
2016-2017 - 29,000,000
2017-2018 - 45,000,000
2018-2019 - 36,000,000
2019-2020 - 38,000,000
2020-2021 - 2136

Perhaps oddly, masking social distancing etc measures that work against a more infectious respiratory virus in Covid work better against influenza.

In Australia at least there was also a bigger push for influenza vaccination last year because it was thought to be not a good idea to catch both.

So if 40 to 60 percent of people are wearing masks in the US, that would drop influenza by 98 percent?

I doubt that it would drop that much even if 100 percent of people were wearing hazmat suits at all times.

You have doubted many things and your evidence for many things has had all the authority of Twitter, and I can’t speak to the American incidence.

The conspiracy obviously runs very deep. We managed to have very few Covid cases at the same time we had very few influenza cases, doubtless just to make life difficult for American conspiracy. theorists. Perhaps the Illuminati paid off the medical profession in Australia to do this as cover for their conspiracy in the USA. An alternative explanation is perhaps that these measures actually work if you do them properly.

Unlike you I have no University degree or post graduate training, but if I was to indulge as an amateur I could suggest that even fairness libertarians might have had a tendency to avoid people with obvious respiratory symptoms during a pandemic. The trick Covid 19 has is that you are infectious for 2 days prior to being symptomatic.The corona virus involved with SARS was less clever and both killed too many of those infected and wasn’t infectious until the patient was very ill.

[michaelm]

Double

[ZB9]

"If lockdowns and masks work, why is Covid spreading?"
CC: "Because people aren't social distancing and wearing masks"
"How did flu cases drop to almost zero?"
CC: "Because people are social distancing and wearing masks"
"That's illogical"
CC: "Conspiracy theorist! Follow the science."

[nikster]

"If lockdowns and masks work, why is Covid spreading?"
CC: "Because people aren't social distancing and wearing masks"
"How did flu cases drop to almost zero?"
CC: "Because people are social distancing and wearing masks"
"That's illogical"
CC: "Conspiracy theorist! Follow the science."

Because COVID is far more contagious then the flu...this has been known early on

[xdrta+]

So if 40 to 60 percent of people are wearing masks in public in the US, that would drop influenza by 98 percent?
I doubt that it would drop that much even if 100 percent of people were wearing hazmat suits at all times.

Your "doubt" is legion, fueled by your agenda. There's no mystery why flu cases dropped, when for the past year and a half Americans, besides wearing masks, have been limiting travel, avoiding crowds, social distancing, and encouraging thorough and frequent handwashing. Infectious disease is passed from person to person, and when gathering places like bars and restaurants are closed, people work from home and avoid close contact with others, of course the flu numbers will drop.

Even a child could understand this, what is it you don't get, again?