NBA protocols/Covid/Vaccine - Discussion thread

[PD28]

This is wrong on so many levels. Imagine withholding millions of dollars from someone over their personal beliefs. Unreal

Players can believe whatever the hell they want, but if you refuse to follow a local governments health ordinance that prevents you from doing your job, then how you going to expect the nba to pay a player for services the player is choosing not to provide?

What’s the difference with people who are granted exemption through religion (nothing against religion) versus those not granted exemption? I’m sure there will be many in that player’s local area that will be exempted and still pose the same threat as an unvaccinated player. The nba at the very least should grant religious exemption to that player. (Which is what like 2 players across the entire league)?! Withholding millions of dollars over a personal choice/decision is just plain morally wrong and straight up tyranny

So if Kyrie says he can't play Friday - Sundays weekly due to his religious beliefs - you would still advocate for him to get paid for those games?

[Dirk]

There is a reality: States, countries have certain restrictions. NBA has protocols.

Players that elect to not take the vaccine, will have certain restrictions.

That is just the reality. Can we discuss the sports repercussions about certain decisions? Or be more nuanced and shift more towards a sports perspective? We don't have to discuss vaccines in every single topic.

No new threads regarding vaccination need to be started. This one will be merged with the one at the top of the page.

[taikibansei]

In 2017, the flu killed over 60,000 Americans and hospitalized 600,000 and that's under reported. Your opinion is that if we paid more attention to the flu we would develop a vaccine that will save more lives? That's a pretty interesting take - the govt has the power and ability to save 60k Americans but not the desire. Seems very benevolent.

The flu does indeed use ICUs, where are you getting your data? 600,000 hospitalizations from the flu in 2017. Hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations every single year. We don't have a short supply of ventilators and those have been discontinued in their usage for the most part.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/comparing-covid-19-deaths-to-flu-deaths-is-like-comparing-apples-to-oranges/

When reports about the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 began circulating earlier this year and questions were being raised about how the illness it causes, COVID-19, compared to the flu, it occurred to me that, in four years of emergency medicine residency and over three and a half years as an attending physician, I had almost never seen anyone die of the flu. I could only remember one tragic pediatric case.

Based on the CDC numbers though, I should have seen many, many more. In 2018, over 46,000 Americans died from opioid overdoses. Over 36,500 died in traffic accidents. Nearly 40,000 died from gun violence. I see those deaths all the time. Was I alone in noticing this discrepancy?

I decided to call colleagues around the country who work in other emergency departments and in intensive care units to ask a simple question: how many patients could they remember dying from the flu? Most of the physicians I surveyed couldn’t remember a single one over their careers. Some said they recalled a few. All of them seemed to be having the same light bulb moment I had already experienced: For too long, we have blindly accepted a statistic that does not match our clinical experience.

The 25,000 to 69,000 numbers that Trump cited do not represent counted flu deaths per year; they are estimates that the CDC produces by multiplying the number of flu death counts reported by various coefficients produced through complicated algorithms. These coefficients are based on assumptions of how many cases, hospitalizations, and deaths they believe went unreported. In the last six flu seasons, the CDC’s reported number of actual confirmed flu deaths—that is, counting flu deaths the way we are currently counting deaths from the coronavirus—has ranged from 3,448 to 15,620, which far lower than the numbers commonly repeated by public officials and even public health experts.

[snip]

If we compare, for instance, the number of people who died in the United States from COVID-19 in the second full week of April to the number of people who died from influenza during the worst week of the past seven flu seasons (as reported to the CDC), we find that the novel coronavirus killed between 9.5 and 44 times more people than seasonal flu. In other words, the coronavirus is not anything like the flu: It is much, much worse.

[Asianiac_24]

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?

The unvaccinated are catching the virus and allowing it to continue mutating, which makes the vaccine less and less effective.

[jackman]

Soon a year will pass since the first covid-19 shots have been administered - so far - safe and effective.

Your definition of effective is twisted.

Is there a threshold in long-term studies that will satisfy the requirements needed for you to change your mind? 3, 5, 7 or 10 years? From my discussion with you, it sounds like your minds already been set.

Safe by what metric? VAERS data is available, have you taken a look at it? There have been tens of thousands of adverse reactions. We still do not have long term data, that doesn't mean 1 year or 3 or 4. Long term refers to 10 years or more. No amount of repeating the "safe and effective" mantra will materialize long term data. Only time can do that.

Yes, we talked about risks versus benefit.

Adverse reactions comes with all drugs/vaccines. Your only concern is that the long-term risks are greater than its short-term and long-term benefits.

You didn't answer my question. But you don't have to if you choose not to. It is a very personal choice. I respect it.

]Flu shots are best estimates of the influenza viral strains that scientists believe will be the most dangerous/highest prevalence in a community/country. This is why flu shots are low effectiveness. There is much less emphasis to cure influenza because it's 1) less contagious and 2) less deadly. Influenza patients do not clog up ICUs and/or use up short-supplies of ventilators. It's not hard to believe that covid-19 vaccines will follow the same path and covid-19 booster shots are needed to combat the next viral strain threat.

In 2017, the flu killed over 60,000 Americans and hospitalized 600,000 and that's under reported. Your opinion is that if we paid more attention to the flu we would develop a vaccine that will save more lives? That's a pretty interesting take - the govt has the power and ability to save 60k Americans but not the desire. Seems very benevolent.

The flu does indeed use ICUs, where are you getting your data? 600,000 hospitalizations from the flu in 2017. Hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations every single year. We don't have a short supply of ventilators and those have been discontinued in their usage for the most part.

And of course it's not hard to believe these vaccines will require boosters, they are shilling them on people not 1 year after the first vaccine. It's not going well.

Not sure how you came up with that as my opinion. What I stated is that the flu changes every year which is why the vaccine has to change also. But each year it is a best estimate, which shows the low effectiveness. Please do not guess my opinion. Weird.

And its not benevolent. This is the BEST evidence/estimate scientists can come up within a short time frame (yearly flu shots) as a preventative measure for yearly flu season. Not a cure.

India just dropped ivermectin and HQC from its official covid-19 treatments.

After using it for the better part of a year and multiple studies published indicating it's usefulness. Again, I'm not some ivermectin shill, if it is less effective than a vaccine that's fine, always do what works. I have a problem with constantly claiming everything is "dangerous" "disinformation" just because it doesn't fit the media curated narrative.

Read up on those links I provided if you're interested, the studies are easy to understand.

What you said about Japan is an example of spreading misinformation that may be dangerous.

Yes yes, everything is dangerous except an emergency authorized drug.

Read. the. studies.

I love how if a person has cancer or whatever, everyone is encouraged to discuss treatment plans, some radical, some conservative, some holistic, etc. It encourages ideas and ultimately helps the patient. Suddenly, with this one specific virus, all talk of any other medication or treatment is "dangerous" even the just the mere consideration is labelled as dangerous.

Your very broad statement that Japan is using ivermectin is not misinformation? There are studies underway - sure. But what I mean as misinformation is when imply that they are using it as a covid-19 treatment but it is not. Studies are being conducted, I understand that. But your statement is inherently a type of misinformation.

[MoneyTalks41890]

I do think it’s important, for NBA reasons, that we note that there is an asymmetry here. All of the facts and evidence are on the side of getting vaxed, all the skepticism and suppositions on the other side. This is a really important inflection point, and I think it’s important that all public fora recognize the factual differences.

[Lunartic]

In 2017, the flu killed over 60,000 Americans and hospitalized 600,000 and that's under reported. Your opinion is that if we paid more attention to the flu we would develop a vaccine that will save more lives? That's a pretty interesting take - the govt has the power and ability to save 60k Americans but not the desire. Seems very benevolent.

The flu does indeed use ICUs, where are you getting your data? 600,000 hospitalizations from the flu in 2017. Hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations every single year. We don't have a short supply of ventilators and those have been discontinued in their usage for the most part.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/comparing-covid-19-deaths-to-flu-deaths-is-like-comparing-apples-to-oranges/

When reports about the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 began circulating earlier this year and questions were being raised about how the illness it causes, COVID-19, compared to the flu, it occurred to me that, in four years of emergency medicine residency and over three and a half years as an attending physician, I had almost never seen anyone die of the flu. I could only remember one tragic pediatric case.

Based on the CDC numbers though, I should have seen many, many more. In 2018, over 46,000 Americans died from opioid overdoses. Over 36,500 died in traffic accidents. Nearly 40,000 died from gun violence. I see those deaths all the time. Was I alone in noticing this discrepancy?

I decided to call colleagues around the country who work in other emergency departments and in intensive care units to ask a simple question: how many patients could they remember dying from the flu? Most of the physicians I surveyed couldn’t remember a single one over their careers. Some said they recalled a few. All of them seemed to be having the same light bulb moment I had already experienced: For too long, we have blindly accepted a statistic that does not match our clinical experience.

The 25,000 to 69,000 numbers that Trump cited do not represent counted flu deaths per year; they are estimates that the CDC produces by multiplying the number of flu death counts reported by various coefficients produced through complicated algorithms. These coefficients are based on assumptions of how many cases, hospitalizations, and deaths they believe went unreported. In the last six flu seasons, the CDC’s reported number of actual confirmed flu deaths—that is, counting flu deaths the way we are currently counting deaths from the coronavirus—has ranged from 3,448 to 15,620, which far lower than the numbers commonly repeated by public officials and even public health experts.

[snip]

If we compare, for instance, the number of people who died in the United States from COVID-19 in the second full week of April to the number of people who died from influenza during the worst week of the past seven flu seasons (as reported to the CDC), we find that the novel coronavirus killed between 9.5 and 44 times more people than seasonal flu. In other words, the coronavirus is not anything like the flu: It is much, much worse.

I'm awfully glad I didn't say the flu was covid. I was making a comparison between deaths and was inquiring why 60k dead Americans was acceptable. My point had zero to do with saying the flu was as bad or equal to covid. Hopefully the homies that and-1 your post also can recognize that.

Read my actual post.

[taikibansei]

In 2017, the flu killed over 60,000 Americans and hospitalized 600,000 and that's under reported. Your opinion is that if we paid more attention to the flu we would develop a vaccine that will save more lives? That's a pretty interesting take - the govt has the power and ability to save 60k Americans but not the desire. Seems very benevolent.

The flu does indeed use ICUs, where are you getting your data? 600,000 hospitalizations from the flu in 2017. Hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations every single year. We don't have a short supply of ventilators and those have been discontinued in their usage for the most part.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/comparing-covid-19-deaths-to-flu-deaths-is-like-comparing-apples-to-oranges/

When reports about the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 began circulating earlier this year and questions were being raised about how the illness it causes, COVID-19, compared to the flu, it occurred to me that, in four years of emergency medicine residency and over three and a half years as an attending physician, I had almost never seen anyone die of the flu. I could only remember one tragic pediatric case.

Based on the CDC numbers though, I should have seen many, many more. In 2018, over 46,000 Americans died from opioid overdoses. Over 36,500 died in traffic accidents. Nearly 40,000 died from gun violence. I see those deaths all the time. Was I alone in noticing this discrepancy?

I decided to call colleagues around the country who work in other emergency departments and in intensive care units to ask a simple question: how many patients could they remember dying from the flu? Most of the physicians I surveyed couldn’t remember a single one over their careers. Some said they recalled a few. All of them seemed to be having the same light bulb moment I had already experienced: For too long, we have blindly accepted a statistic that does not match our clinical experience.

The 25,000 to 69,000 numbers that Trump cited do not represent counted flu deaths per year; they are estimates that the CDC produces by multiplying the number of flu death counts reported by various coefficients produced through complicated algorithms. These coefficients are based on assumptions of how many cases, hospitalizations, and deaths they believe went unreported. In the last six flu seasons, the CDC’s reported number of actual confirmed flu deaths—that is, counting flu deaths the way we are currently counting deaths from the coronavirus—has ranged from 3,448 to 15,620, which far lower than the numbers commonly repeated by public officials and even public health experts.

[snip]

If we compare, for instance, the number of people who died in the United States from COVID-19 in the second full week of April to the number of people who died from influenza during the worst week of the past seven flu seasons (as reported to the CDC), we find that the novel coronavirus killed between 9.5 and 44 times more people than seasonal flu. In other words, the coronavirus is not anything like the flu: It is much, much worse.

I'm awfully glad I didn't say the flu was covid. I was making a comparison between deaths and was inquiring why 60k dead Americans was acceptable. My point had zero to do with saying the flu was as bad or equal to covid. Hopefully the homies that and-1 your post also can recognize that.

Read my actual post.

And as my post from Scientific American makes clear, 60k Americans didn't die of the flu...ever.

Read my actual post.

[Lunartic]

Yes, we talked about risks versus benefit.

Adverse reactions comes with all drugs/vaccines. Your only concern is that the long-term risks are greater than its short-term and long-term benefits.

You didn't answer my question. But you don't have to if you choose not to. It is a very personal choice. I respect it.

Answer the question asking if there is a time scale of when I'll consider a drug safe/effective? Sure and I've mentioned it repeatedly. I want it to follow the standard introduction and approval process all FDA approved drugs require. It ranges abut 10 years from intro to distro. If during that time, adverse reactions are at a minimum and it's effective at what it attempts to do, then sure I'll say it meets reasonable criteria.

I'm not sure why this is a contentious point - we Americans pride ourselves on regulations designed to keep harmful - for profit drugs from circulating.

Are you not aware of the rigorous testing and trials that are required for drugs? Here's a link from the FDA -

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/information-consumers-and-patients-drugs/fdas-drug-review-process-continued

Exceptions can be made in serious situations like a pandemic but that doesn't mean the drug is safe/or underwent the same testing/trials as other approved drugs.

Here''s a drug.com excerpt

It takes over $2.6 billion for a manufacturer to get a new drug from the laboratory onto the pharmacy shelf, according to the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development. The full research, development and approval process can last from 12 to 15 years.

]Flu shots are best estimates of the influenza viral strains that scientists believe will be the most dangerous/highest prevalence in a community/country. This is why flu shots are low effectiveness. There is much less emphasis to cure influenza because it's 1) less contagious and 2) less deadly. Influenza patients do not clog up ICUs and/or use up short-supplies of ventilators. It's not hard to believe that covid-19 vaccines will follow the same path and covid-19 booster shots are needed to combat the next viral strain threat.

In 2017, the flu killed over 60,000 Americans and hospitalized 600,000 and that's under reported. Your opinion is that if we paid more attention to the flu we would develop a vaccine that will save more lives? That's a pretty interesting take - the govt has the power and ability to save 60k Americans but not the desire. Seems very benevolent.

The flu does indeed use ICUs, where are you getting your data? 600,000 hospitalizations from the flu in 2017. Hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations every single year. We don't have a short supply of ventilators and those have been discontinued in their usage for the most part.

And of course it's not hard to believe these vaccines will require boosters, they are shilling them on people not 1 year after the first vaccine. It's not going well.

Not sure how you came up with that as my opinion. What I stated is that the flu changes every year which is why the vaccine has to change also. But each year it is a best estimate, which shows the low effectiveness. Please do not guess my opinion. Weird.

I'm not guessing your opinion, you stated this-

There is much less emphasis to cure influenza because it's 1) less contagious and 2) less deadly

Perhaps, I misinterpreted but it appears clear that you're saying that the Flu for the last 20 years has been "curable" but because it only kills 50k+ Americans and hospitalizes 500k it is of lower priority to the govt/medical industry.

Your very broad statement that Japan is using ivermectin is not misinformation? There are studies underway - sure. But what I mean as misinformation is when imply that they are using it as a covid-19 treatment but it is not. Studies are being conducted, I understand that. But your statement is inherently a type of misinformation.

[/quote]

No, it's not misinformation. Japan used ivermectin widely and has multiple large scale studies. My friend, how do you imagine these studies are being conducted? They are using ivermectin on patients with covid19. Japan also has been using Remdesivir
and Baricitinib (in smaller cases).

I really would implore you to read up on some of the studies I posted. I'm perfectly willing to accept that the vaccine is more effective than them all, it would actually be a boon for society considering how well received it is. Unfortunately, the vaccine doesn't help someone once they are in the ICU, you need treatments for that.

[nikster]

Soon a year will pass since the first covid-19 shots have been administered - so far - safe and effective.

Your definition of effective is twisted.

Is there a threshold in long-term studies that will satisfy the requirements needed for you to change your mind? 3, 5, 7 or 10 years? From my discussion with you, it sounds like your minds already been set.

Safe by what metric? VAERS data is available, have you taken a look at it? There have been tens of thousands of adverse reactions. We still do not have long term data, that doesn't mean 1 year or 3 or 4. Long term refers to 10 years or more. No amount of repeating the "safe and effective" mantra will materialize long term data. Only time can do that.

Flu shots are best estimates of the influenza viral strains that scientists believe will be the most dangerous/highest prevalence in a community/country. This is why flu shots are low effectiveness. There is much less emphasis to cure influenza because it's 1) less contagious and 2) less deadly. Influenza patients do not clog up ICUs and/or use up short-supplies of ventilators. It's not hard to believe that covid-19 vaccines will follow the same path and covid-19 booster shots are needed to combat the next viral strain threat.

In 2017, the flu killed over 60,000 Americans and hospitalized 600,000 and that's under reported. Your opinion is that if we paid more attention to the flu we would develop a vaccine that will save more lives? That's a pretty interesting take - the govt has the power and ability to save 60k Americans but not the desire. Seems very benevolent.

The flu does indeed use ICUs, where are you getting your data? 600,000 hospitalizations from the flu in 2017. Hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations every single year. We don't have a short supply of ventilators and those have been discontinued in their usage for the most part.

And of course it's not hard to believe these vaccines will require boosters, they are shilling them on people not 1 year after the first vaccine. It's not going well.

This I somewhat agree with - mutations will occur regardless of vaccinations. Similar to influenza. You stated it, unvaccinated will suffer more with symptoms and vaccinated will suffer less. This is supported by evidence.

Which means more and more shots. As the virus mutates it becomes less deadly.

India just dropped ivermectin and HQC from its official covid-19 treatments.

After using it for the better part of a year and multiple studies published indicating it's usefulness. Again, I'm not some ivermectin shill, if it is less effective than a vaccine that's fine, always do what works. I have a problem with constantly claiming everything is "dangerous" "disinformation" just because it doesn't fit the media curated narrative.

Read up on those links I provided if you're interested, the studies are easy to understand.

What you said about Japan is an example of spreading misinformation that may be dangerous.

Yes yes, everything is dangerous except an emergency authorized drug.

Japan refuted claims of using ivermectin, it is not an approved treatment/therapy for covid-19. ONE doctor said he had success with it and another suggests thorough clinical trials to seek more evidence. Please do not spread this as facts

Read. the. studies.

I love how if a person has cancer or whatever, everyone is encouraged to discuss treatment plans, some radical, some conservative, some holistic, etc. It encourages ideas and ultimately helps the patient. Suddenly, with this one specific virus, all talk of any other medication or treatment is "dangerous" even the just the mere consideration is labelled as dangerous.

VAERS is just about the worse source there is for vaccine adverse effects. Unverifiable, unvetted. Most drugs are approved after about 3.5 years of follow up in phase 3 trials, not 10 years. Phase 3 studies also dont have the sample size to detect rare adverse effects like the myocarditis and blood clots. There has never been an adverse effect from a medication that occurs years after administration.
Wheres your data for the number of ICU stays for flu? Hosptilizations does not equal ICU or ventilators. And also important is the average length of stay in ICU, which is also much longer for covid.

The vaccine remains around 80% effective against severe disease even after the waning that occurs in 6 months. I do not think most of the population will be getting more than 3 shots in their lifetime.

Why would India drop it if it was effective? The studies do not support ivermectin, and theres no positive ones coming out of India. Its not a media curated narrative, its the narrative coming from every significant medical association in the world. The largest meta-analysis done this summer showed no benefit. The largest randomized control trial done (after that meta analysis) also showed no benefit. If studies supported it, health care professionals would largely support it. And the discussion of medications like Ivermectin and HCQ are dangerous because they lead to false sense of security and become an excuse to avoid vaccination, a treatment that does have benefit. And your example of cancer patients is fitting, because preventable deaths occur all the time when patients chase garbage "holistic" treatments in lieu of evidenced based treatments.

Even if you want to discuss safety, 90% of players have had the vaccine. There is no reports of them getting any adverse reactions from the vaccine. No where near that amount would have contracted covid, and theres several reports of players being impacted by covid. I know fred vanvleet and Siakam were significantly impacted and struggled to get back in shape, Tatum was relying on an inhaler for months afterwards. The risk/benefit is still very high in vaccines because hospitalizations isnt the only thing that can have an impact on their careers.

[Lunartic]

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/comparing-covid-19-deaths-to-flu-deaths-is-like-comparing-apples-to-oranges/

I'm awfully glad I didn't say the flu was covid. I was making a comparison between deaths and was inquiring why 60k dead Americans was acceptable. My point had zero to do with saying the flu was as bad or equal to covid. Hopefully the homies that and-1 your post also can recognize that.

Read my actual post.

And as my post from Scientific American makes clear, 60k Americans didn't die of the flu...ever.

Read my actual post.

CDC disagrees with you fam

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2017-2018.htm

[taikibansei]

I'm awfully glad I didn't say the flu was covid. I was making a comparison between deaths and was inquiring why 60k dead Americans was acceptable. My point had zero to do with saying the flu was as bad or equal to covid. Hopefully the homies that and-1 your post also can recognize that.

Read my actual post.

And as my post from Scientific American makes clear, 60k Americans didn't die of the flu...ever.

Read my actual post.

CDC disagrees with you fam

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2017-2018.htm

Looks like somebody didn't read my post--or the article I linked to. (I.e., the CDC is not disagreeing with me but with the medical community as cited in Scientific American.)

Fam

[Lunartic]

And as my post from Scientific American makes clear, 60k Americans didn't die of the flu...ever.

Read my actual post.

CDC disagrees with you fam

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2017-2018.htm

Looks like somebody didn't read my post--or the article I linked to. (I.e., the CDC is not disagreeing with me but with the medical community as cited in Scientific American.)

Fam

Yeah, I'll stick with the CDC stats famalam.
Nice bit from your article though;

"that is, counting flu deaths the way we are currently counting deaths from the coronavirus—has ranged from 3,448 to 15,620,"

So we should count people that got hit by cars but had influenza as a flu death? How about some guy with terminal cancer but also has the flu virus regardless of symptoms? Maybe we can use PCR tests that are notorious for their false positives? Or maybe we avoid distinguishing between "died with covid" vs "died from covid?
Or we can financially incentivize how many flu cases a hospital treats.

We can agree to disagree.

[taikibansei]

CDC disagrees with you fam

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2017-2018.htm

Looks like somebody didn't read my post--or the article I linked to. (I.e., the CDC is not disagreeing with me but with the medical community as cited in Scientific American.)

Fam

Yeah, I'll stick with the CDC stats famalam.
Nice bit from your article though;

"that is, counting flu deaths the way we are currently counting deaths from the coronavirus—has ranged from 3,448 to 15,620,"

So we should count people that got hit by cars but had influenza as a flu death? How about some guy with terminal cancer but also has the flu virus regardless of symptoms? Maybe we can use PCR tests that are notorious for their false positives? Or maybe we avoid distinguishing between "died with covid" vs "died from covid?
Or we can financially incentivize how many flu cases a hospital treats.

We can agree to disagree.

No, what that article is saying--quoting the CDC by the way--is that flu deaths for many years have not be counted but estimated according to a weird formula. (The exact, very weird formula is in the article.) Why is not explained in the article I linked to, though I have seen other articles (which I can also link to if necessary) which suggest that the current practice of estimating flu deaths by said formula began after the production of the flu vaccine...with the implication that this estimation practice was started to drum up business for the flu vaccines.

You are also misunderstanding the quote you italicize in your response to me. What that says is that if you were to evaluate/count flu deaths with the same rigor that COVID deaths under the Trump administration were evaluated/counted, then flu deaths in the US would have ranged from just 3,448 to 15,620 annually. (COVID, of course, has killed 630,000 in the US over the last fourteen months, and that's when evaluated/counted per the criteria/guidelines set last year under Trump.)

I personally think that this miscounting of flu deaths--whatever the reasons for it--has been very damaging to COVID prevention efforts, especially given how right-wing pundits have latched on to the inflated numbers and used them as "evidence" that COVID is no big deal.

[Lunartic]

Looks like somebody didn't read my post--or the article I linked to. (I.e., the CDC is not disagreeing with me but with the medical community as cited in Scientific American.)

Fam

Yeah, I'll stick with the CDC stats famalam.
Nice bit from your article though;

"that is, counting flu deaths the way we are currently counting deaths from the coronavirus—has ranged from 3,448 to 15,620,"

So we should count people that got hit by cars but had influenza as a flu death? How about some guy with terminal cancer but also has the flu virus regardless of symptoms? Maybe we can use PCR tests that are notorious for their false positives? Or maybe we avoid distinguishing between "died with covid" vs "died from covid?
Or we can financially incentivize how many flu cases a hospital treats.

We can agree to disagree.

No, what that article is saying--quoting the CDC by the way--is that flu deaths for many years have not be counted but estimated according to a weird formula. (The exact, very weird formula is in the article.) Why is not explained in the article I linked to, though I have seen other articles (which I can also link to if necessary) which suggest that the current practice of estimating flu deaths by said formula began after the production of the flu vaccine...with the implication that this estimation practice was started to drum up business for the flu vaccines.

You are also misunderstanding the quote you italicize in your response to me. What that says is that if you were to evaluate/count flu deaths with the same rigor that COVID deaths under the Trump administration were evaluated/counted, then flu deaths in the US would have ranged from just 3,448 to 15,620 annually. (COVID, of course, has killed 630,000 in the US over the last fourteen months, and that's when evaluated/counted per the criteria/guidelines set last year under Trump.)

I personally think that this miscounting of flu deaths--whatever the reasons for it--has been very damaging to COVID prevention efforts, especially given how right-wing pundits have latched on to the inflated numbers and used them as "evidence" that COVID is no big deal.

No, I'm not misunderstanding. I'm being sarcastic. The methods the US used to count Covid deaths were disastrously inept and in some cases downright faulty. The entire medical apparatus was designed to artificially increase the amount of covid deaths. There was no distinguishing between death with covid and death from covid. That alone ruins any accuracy in the death count which in turn changes the CFR/IFR

Thus, I found that quote to be of particular hilarity given if we used the same methods of counting covid cases and used it to count flu deaths, we'd see astronomical increases in flu deaths.

But we're getting away from the NBA type discussion so I'll drop it but either of us get warned. I'm happy to agree to disagree.

[jackman]

Yes, we talked about risks versus benefit.

Adverse reactions comes with all drugs/vaccines. Your only concern is that the long-term risks are greater than its short-term and long-term benefits.

You didn't answer my question. But you don't have to if you choose not to. It is a very personal choice. I respect it.

Answer the question asking if there is a time scale of when I'll consider a drug safe/effective? Sure and I've mentioned it repeatedly. I want it to follow the standard introduction and approval process all FDA approved drugs require. It ranges abut 10 years from intro to distro. If during that time, adverse reactions are at a minimum and it's effective at what it attempts to do, then sure I'll say it meets reasonable criteria.

I'm not sure why this is a contentious point - we Americans pride ourselves on regulations designed to keep harmful - for profit drugs from circulating.

Are you not aware of the rigorous testing and trials that are required for drugs? Here's a link from the FDA -

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/information-consumers-and-patients-drugs/fdas-drug-review-process-continued

Exceptions can be made in serious situations like a pandemic but that doesn't mean the drug is safe/or underwent the same testing/trials as other approved drugs.

Here''s a drug.com excerpt

It takes over $2.6 billion for a manufacturer to get a new drug from the laboratory onto the pharmacy shelf, according to the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development. The full research, development and approval process can last from 12 to 15 years.

]Flu shots are best estimates of the influenza viral strains that scientists believe will be the most dangerous/highest prevalence in a community/country. This is why flu shots are low effectiveness. There is much less emphasis to cure influenza because it's 1) less contagious and 2) less deadly. Influenza patients do not clog up ICUs and/or use up short-supplies of ventilators. It's not hard to believe that covid-19 vaccines will follow the same path and covid-19 booster shots are needed to combat the next viral strain threat.

In 2017, the flu killed over 60,000 Americans and hospitalized 600,000 and that's under reported. Your opinion is that if we paid more attention to the flu we would develop a vaccine that will save more lives? That's a pretty interesting take - the govt has the power and ability to save 60k Americans but not the desire. Seems very benevolent.

The flu does indeed use ICUs, where are you getting your data? 600,000 hospitalizations from the flu in 2017. Hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations every single year. We don't have a short supply of ventilators and those have been discontinued in their usage for the most part.

And of course it's not hard to believe these vaccines will require boosters, they are shilling them on people not 1 year after the first vaccine. It's not going well.

Not sure how you came up with that as my opinion. What I stated is that the flu changes every year which is why the vaccine has to change also. But each year it is a best estimate, which shows the low effectiveness. Please do not guess my opinion. Weird.

I'm not guessing your opinion, you stated this-

There is much less emphasis to cure influenza because it's 1) less contagious and 2) less deadly

Perhaps, I misinterpreted but it appears clear that you're saying that the Flu for the last 20 years has been "curable" but because it only kills 50k+ Americans and hospitalizes 500k it is of lower priority to the govt/medical industry.

Your very broad statement that Japan is using ivermectin is not misinformation? There are studies underway - sure. But what I mean as misinformation is when imply that they are using it as a covid-19 treatment but it is not. Studies are being conducted, I understand that. But your statement is inherently a type of misinformation.

No, it's not misinformation. Japan used ivermectin widely and has multiple large scale studies. My friend, how do you imagine these studies are being conducted? They are using ivermectin on patients with covid19. Japan also has been using Remdesivir
and Baricitinib (in smaller cases).

I really would implore you to read up on some of the studies I posted. I'm perfectly willing to accept that the vaccine is more effective than them all, it would actually be a boon for society considering how well received it is. Unfortunately, the vaccine doesn't help someone once they are in the ICU, you need treatments for that.

Not my words but only your interpretation of my statements. Very cynical way of thinking on your end. Perhaps I'm using the word cure too loosely. Poor english on my end.

You and another poster discussed the flu stats, so I won't go in depth. You understand they are completely different - covid-19 being statistically more impactful and deadly. That's great. This is what I meant when there is less emphasis on flu, versus covid-19.

You again stated Japan is widely using ivermectin. Studies are experiments. This doesn't mean a person living in Japan will be treated with Ivermectin when they are in ICU or admitted to anywhere in a hospital at all. That is not standard practice in Japan. It's not in their treatment guidelines so I'm curious where you get this from? Again, you were showing trials, I understand that.

Your last line is talking about treatment in ICU...that's a totally different aspect. Vaccine is prophylactic. Remdesivir and Baricitinib are treatments in their guideline for covid-sickened ICU patients. Ivermectin is not.

To summarize our discussion strictly regarding covid vaccines and your thoughts:

1) You want more long term safety/efficacy data
2) You understand and went into detail about viral mutations
3) You want a minimum eg. 10 years as a good timeframe for any drugs/vaccines to go through rigorous testing

Under your criteria, no developing drug/vaccine by default can satisfy your criteria. You have to wait 10 years!

[nickhx2]

for whatever it's worth my ICU guy has recovered from covid and posted this today

"...I just told them that ivermectin was suspected to be the cause of his liver damage and continuing its use would likely worsen it, and could lead to permanent liver damage. I then told them that I've given thousands of doses of remdesivir and never personally seen an adverse reaction, but that I have at least 5 patients with organ damage on my floor due to ivermectin use. The choice is ultimately up to the patient and that I would be counseling him on medications and potential side effects."

[Nsync_Beckham]

Leave the unvaccinated players alone. It's their body not big pharma's and so it's their own choice on what to do with it. People are acting like all these vaccine manufactures involved are perfectly innocent and have a fantastic track record...besides if you're vaccinated, what's the issue? Yours won't work unless i get mine? I swear..this has become a cult. It's like once they get the jab they're programmed to recite the same lines like "get the damn shot"
If vaccinated people can get it and spread it, why aren't they losing jobs too?

[rockmanslim]

Read on Twitter

[ItsDanger]

I'd like to see the section of CBA they base this on. Going to be a solid legal case regardless.

Yes I’m sure that random poster ItsDanger has put more research and effort into this than the NBA’s lawyers lmao

I guess we don't need courtrooms anymore than. Case closed.