NBA protocols/Covid/Vaccine - Discussion thread

[Hsker4Life]

Your research was an economists blog, that referenced a small study that had 200 people in it.
Mine was an actual scientific hypothesis that had 2,200,000 people in it.

And you denied the research I provided, the 2.2 million one, for because you really want to believe the one with 200 people.

Just know that people see that.

It’s hard to take you seriously when you accused me of lying for giving you exactly what you asked me to provide. Want to walk that back?

I asked you where you got it from. Quit deflecting, no one cares

You asked for the source of the chart. I gave it to you. You then got your panties in a twist because you were too lazy to actually look at what you were provided.

You care.

[xdrta+]

Non-compliance is the only way out of this for the unvaxxed. Stand strong, make them physically assault you at your work and catch it all on camera. American's still have fundamental rights in the constitution, including freedom of movement, and right to privacy. If you are going to take away millions of dollars from me, you better believe I am going down swinging.

The government has had the power to mandate vaccines since the Supreme Court decision Jacobsen v Massachusetts in 1905.
And the mandate the Jacobson decision rests on was much more Draconian than what we are seeing today -- it was a local health mandate in Cambridge that ALL members of the public had to get vaccinated. Period.
Jacobson was a preacher with a history of adverse reactions to vaccines.
Still lost.
Check out Wickard v Filburn. You literally cant even grow your own food on your own property for your own use if the government doesn't want you to. By not having to buy the food at a store, you are impacting interstate commerce and subject to federal gov regulation.
Buck v Bell, the gov can have people sterilized if they deem it's for the common good.
Etc.
I think maybe a lot of people are just finding out they aren't really as free as they thought they were. All that land of the free stuff has always been propaganda. It's just that usually the encroachments on civil liberties only affect minorities and the poor, whereas the masks and vax requirements are affecting everyone.

The point is the punishment for violating a vaccine mandate is not criminal and the consequence is only a ticket. I'm not saying that mandates aren't a thing, but rather because of their civil nature, you can ignore them without much resistance outside a fine. It's like parking in a handicap spot... at the end of the day you can do it, but you might get socially shunned and fined. Other than that, nobody can stop you for doing it.

Since the NBA does not require an NBA player to be vaccinated to work, Kyrie would only be subjected to state punishment for violating the mandate, which appears to be is a 1-5k fine.

Kyrie can say "give me the ticket, I will fight it in court, and don't deny me my right to earn a living until I'm found guilty to pay the fine". The NBA would then be in a position to unlawfully prevent Kyrie from playing

Yeah, you don't get it. The mandate is against the person individually, it is against the employer. Restaurant health codes are not against employees, they are against the restaurant. The same way here, they are against the arena, which can't allow violations or they will be shut down.

EDIT: Is NOT against the individual.

[FNQ]

Where has it been shown that mask mandates slow the spread of COVID amongst students in a school setting?

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.19.21257467v1.full

Ok, and here are some other studies that have shown significant decline due to school mask mandates.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7004e3.htm

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7012e3.htm

(There are plenty others but these 2 were catalogued so close together)

Note that these studies had the same variables as the one you presented: spacing where available, higher ventilation, etc etc

And since we do know that masking does help prevent the spread of COVID in general, the burden of proof would be to show that masks are actually ineffective. While there have been a couple outlier cases where they determined there was no effective change, EVERY ONE of those studies relayed in their notes that the "control" group often times had masks and still had the same amounts of ventilation and spacing.

“ Among 17 rural Wisconsin schools, reported student mask-wearing was high, and the COVID-19 incidence among students and staff members was lower than in the county overall (3,453 versus 5,466 per 100,000). Among 191 cases identified in students and staff members, only seven (3.7%) cases, all among students, were linked to in-school spread.”

That’s quite weak.

Reported mask wearing is high
Rates of COVID 19 amonst the staff and students was low
Your analysis: students shouldn't need to wear masks.

... really?

I'm really starting to suspect that you don't understand how studies work. You certainly don't understand how questions work:

Again, source? I'm sure its legitimate, not like some random substack or something.

Also, your image from before? Its not listed there. Whered you get it?

But look, there's obviously no way you were gonna admit you were wrong, just moving the goalposts from the flu being stronger than COVID to now kids shouldnt have to wear masks... you do whatever you need to. I'll just pop up when you start making inaccurate claims. It just makes no sense to me why someone would continuously make incorrect assertions when your research consists of substack posts and google searching. I'd wager that your search was something along the lines of "which study proves masks in schools dont work" because it sure would be a lot tougher to find that study you found if you put in "are masks in schools effective?"

[Hsker4Life]

Ok, and here are some other studies that have shown significant decline due to school mask mandates.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7004e3.htm

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7012e3.htm

(There are plenty others but these 2 were catalogued so close together)

Note that these studies had the same variables as the one you presented: spacing where available, higher ventilation, etc etc

And since we do know that masking does help prevent the spread of COVID in general, the burden of proof would be to show that masks are actually ineffective. While there have been a couple outlier cases where they determined there was no effective change, EVERY ONE of those studies relayed in their notes that the "control" group often times had masks and still had the same amounts of ventilation and spacing.

“ Among 17 rural Wisconsin schools, reported student mask-wearing was high, and the COVID-19 incidence among students and staff members was lower than in the county overall (3,453 versus 5,466 per 100,000). Among 191 cases identified in students and staff members, only seven (3.7%) cases, all among students, were linked to in-school spread.”

That’s quite weak.

Reported mask wearing is high
Rates of COVID 19 amonst the staff and students was low
Your analysis: students shouldn't need to wear masks.

... really?

I'm really starting to suspect that you don't understand how studies work. You certainly don't understand how questions work:

Again, source? I'm sure its legitimate, not like some random substack or something.

Also, your image from before? Its not listed there. Whered you get it?

But look, there's obviously no way you were gonna admit you were wrong, just moving the goalposts from the flu being stronger than COVID to now kids shouldnt have to wear masks... you do whatever you need to. I'll just pop up when you start making inaccurate claims. It just makes no sense to me why someone would continuously make incorrect assertions when your research consists of substack posts and google searching. I'd wager that your search was something along the lines of "which study proves masks in schools dont work" because it sure would be a lot tougher to find that study you found if you put in "are masks in schools effective?"

You continue to be intellectually dishonest.

I switched to kids shouldn’t have to wear masks? That was my whole point. Kids shouldn’t have to be made to wear masks when COVID doesn’t effect them in significant numbers, no more than the flu. I’ve provided studies that support this. You’ve provided studies that suggest otherwise. But both sides of the spectrum should agree that it’s rare for kids to be severely impacted by a COVID infection.

I also provided a very detailed study that showed no evidence of mask mandates slowing the spread of COVID amongst students in a school setting. You don’t like that. You want to be alarmed. And you want others to be just as scared as you are.

You continue with your dishonest ways. You being unable to even admit you were wrong by suggesting I lied proves without any doubt you’re incapable of having an honest discussion.

[FNQ]

You provided a study, one that has no control group, and no controlled variable data. Meaning - and the study itself notes this - that you aren't comparing 2 variables. You are comparing one to a general idea. A mask mandate in a place like NY, where the pandemic started, where the demographic tilts Democratic (the ones who are far more likely to be masked).. means far less than a mask mandate in a place that's less likely to wear masks otherwise.

Again, re-iterating: ONE study. I didnt realize you wanted more studies on why mask wearing would be beneficial. And does it matter? You've already admitted to ignoring the data from the 1st claim of the flu being more dangerous for children, where you were proven definitively wrong, and then said "nah, I'm not".

So tell me what the point would be in showing you other studies showing that mask-wearing in school is effective, or that wearing a mask at all is? You have one dubious study. One! Why are you so insistent that the great majority of scientific minds are wrong, even when there's data to back it up? It's beyond willful ignorance, its trying to convince others to be just as bad

[Homer38]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[JN61]

So about 20 players aren't vaccinated.

[NyKnicks1714]

Good. I expect that to be 100% by mid-season at the latest.

[ishoy123]

Oh boy yet another thread that will end up having nothing to do with basketball

[FNQ]

Since 2 wasnt enough:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7039e1.htm

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7039e3.htm

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7039e2.htm

Thats now 5 studies that detail the effectiveness of masking in schools with 2 of them specifically showing noteable improvements due to mask mandates in schools.

So in short:

- best case scenario: we make a difference in COVID cases and help stop spread
- worst case scenario: we don't make a noticeable difference

This is the exact same thing with the flu/covid argument. Pick one study that tells you want to hear, it must be the truth. Nevermind the numerous studies that are very clear in saying the opposite.

[Lalouie]

so wiggins and kyrie can take consolation that they remain true to themselves

[Noodlesoop]

so wiggins and kyrie can take consolation that they remain true to themselves

Let them do their own research man, they know better than all the supposed ‘expert’ scientists. It’s their bodies so they don’t have to care about anybody else, jeez.

[Lalouie]

so wiggins and kyrie can take consolation that they remain true to themselves

Let them do their own research man, they know better than all the supposed ‘expert’ scientists. It’s their bodies so they don’t have to care about anybody else, jeez.

they can give the money back and alls well, dude.

"guys, i'll take your 20-30 million this year but i wont play cuz i don't wanna get vaxxed." - what do you think part of this is about anyway,,,,,jeez

[Hsker4Life]

You provided a study, one that has no control group, and no controlled variable data. Meaning - and the study itself notes this - that you aren't comparing 2 variables. You are comparing one to a general idea. A mask mandate in a place like NY, where the pandemic started, where the demographic tilts Democratic (the ones who are far more likely to be masked).. means far less than a mask mandate in a place that's less likely to wear masks otherwise.

Again, re-iterating: ONE study. I didnt realize you wanted more studies on why mask wearing would be beneficial. And does it matter? You've already admitted to ignoring the data from the 1st claim of the flu being more dangerous for children, where you were proven definitively wrong, and then said "nah, I'm not".

So tell me what the point would be in showing you other studies showing that mask-wearing in school is effective, or that wearing a mask at all is? You have one dubious study. One! Why are you so insistent that the great majority of scientific minds are wrong, even when there's data to back it up? It's beyond willful ignorance, its trying to convince others to be just as bad

Your desire to be intellectually dishonest knows no limits. This isn’t about masks working or not in adults. This is about whether or not the kind of masks kids wear, coupled with the type of mask-etiquette kids practice, slow the spread of COVID in school settings. They do not.

In the same schools, mask mandates slowed COVID spread amongst adult staff, but NOT amongst the students. I’m sorry that doesn’t jive with your alarmist attitude. But my friend, I think you’ll be okay.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.19.21257467v1.full

[ShootersShoot]

If the vaccine works as expected and it prevents the spread/reduces symptoms, then why aren't people content to let the unvaccinated players face the consequences alone? 70%+ of the population is vaccinated, the remaining 30ish percent clearly isn't interested and thus can reap what they sow.

NBA arenas require proof of vaccination or negative tests and NBA players aren't exactly rushing into the crowds and fighting the fans outside of a single incident.

Other than some rare example of someone that is allergic to vaccines, I can't imagine an unvaxxed player is putting anyone at risk assuming those at risk are vaccinated with a safe and effective vaccine. And that is compounded by the fact that a large swath of the 30% unvaccinated have already gotten and recovered from covid, many NBA players have - thus they have the same protection as someone that took the vaccine.

I suppose I just don't see the risk factor here if the vaccines do indeed work effectively. There has been a great effort by the media and government to tell us that breakthrough cases are exceedingly rare and we need not worry about vaxxed spreading covid.


Additionally, a common argument is that ICU beds will dwindle if everyone isn't vaccinated. Question, if we could guarantee we had enough ICU beds and resources, would you agree to removing all covid restrictions and vaccine requirements?

Hospital congestion and unnecessary death seem like pretty good reasons to me.

So your opinion is to use public pressure/coercion to get people that have made a decision to not be vaccinated to be vaccinated?

At what point do you draw a line? At this point it's a personal decision - do you think the govt should have input into dangerous personal decisions? If a guy wants to eat 19 burgers a day and never workout, he's unnecessarily increasing his risk of death/hospitalization. If a school teacher decides to join the military, he increased his risk of death significantly (unless you're a Chicago public school teacher)

If the vaccine works and 99% of new cases are just unvaxxed people, it's not about contagiousness anymore. It's about deciding for oneself the risk they will endure, which coincidentally is how the world has almost always been.

Show me a few examples of someone not receiving emergency care because of a lack of hospital resources (due to unvaxxed covid patients taking up resources) This boogeyman is constantly touted but there's no real evidence. Hospitals routinely work at or near max capacity for profit reasons. It doesn't benefit them to have empty beds and doctors/nurses sitting around.

And okay say you're right and the stress on healthcare resources is the issue - if we could guarantee we had enough ICU beds/staff to ensure no one would go without care, would you still insist people take the vaccine/would you be in favor of lifting all restrictions?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sfgate.com/coronavirus/amp/Boise-woman-forced-Bay-Area-hospitals-COVID-16497266.php

No offense but you have absolutely no idea how the real world works. The best way to not cause these issues is to be proactive, which the vaccine allows for. It is not economically viable or sustainable to magically have enough resources appear every time a surge of covid, or any other disease/event requiring excess number of hospitalization happens. Sure, most medical facilities have protocols for such situations, but they are not meant to sustain surges lasting months or longer, and certainly not designed for crisis happening on a national or worldwide scale. What you are suggesting is that the world or even a nation, with a finite amount of resources available, can somehow ensure that we will always have enough to provide care at any and all times is a hypothetical that is not rooted in reality.

And yes, many hospitals do work at capacity, so you dont think even a slight uptick of excess patients would put a strain on the entire place?

[OkcSinceSGA]

Not worth it

[Pointgod]

This is good. Let’s get that number to WNBA levels

[FNQ]

Gonna be hilarious this season when the NBA experiences a ton of breakthrough cases... and we realize a “mandate” is worthless (I didn’t say vaccine is worthless). NYT today reporting 55% of those hospitalized now in the USA at this moment are vaccinated. Let them start counting breakthrough cases again (not just hospitalized or dead) so we can get a more complete picture of where it’s spreading.

I strongly believe this is already endemic (most scientists at minimum seem to agree it will become endemic soon). This thing is here to stay forever now. Learning to cope with it is far more viable than pretending it can be eradicated. Better therapeutics, better health. That’s how we will “beat” this IMO.

The vaccine is not being pushed to eradicate. It is being pushed so because it slows the spread and allows hospitals to operate under maximum capacity. It could have eradicated if we saw a very high vaccination rate with some urgency, but as evidenced in other threads, evidence does not mean much to some

That stuff you think will beat this? Secondary to having available hospital capacity for those affected by COVID, and frankly, those with other respiratory illnesses that also require beds in respiratory ICU

[NyKnicks1714]

NYT today reporting 55% of those hospitalized now in the USA at this moment are vaccinated.

Link?

[art_tatum]

Gonna be hilarious this season when the NBA experiences a ton of breakthrough cases... and we realize a “mandate” is worthless (I didn’t say vaccine is worthless). NYT today reporting 55% of those hospitalized now in the USA at this moment are vaccinated. Let them start counting breakthrough cases again (not just hospitalized or dead) so we can get a more complete picture of where it’s spreading.

I strongly believe this is already endemic (most scientists at minimum seem to agree it will become endemic soon). This thing is here to stay forever now. Learning to cope with it is far more viable than pretending it can be eradicated. Better therapeutics, better health. That’s how we will “beat” this IMO.

Ughhj i dont see such an article, you mean their article today that said 'mandate on vaccinations largely working ' lol.

The only data i found was about IRELAND where 54% hospitalized were vaxed but the country is 90%+ vaxed so clearly it helps reduce hospitalizations- if the other 10% accounts for half of hospitalizations.

Cite your 55% in america. Maybe you misread bc 55% americans are vaccinated. Otherwise dont spread misinformation.