Practice Squad

[Norm]

Feels like a ban than a lock tbh

[Old Guy]

7 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Science is fluid. Everytime I see a post that conflicts with the best information we have today in exchange for far, far worse pseudo-science I will continue to call it out and point readers to reality.

Just want to ask you two questions. I don't want to turn this into a debate. 

Are you saying people who have had COVID do not carry immunities for it? IF so, that would be counter to EVERY virus, disease in history. The way you build immunity is being exposed to various diseases, etc. 

Also, was the immunity for the Delta variant part of the protections for this vaccine? Put another way, the annual flu shot does not protect against all strains of the flue. Were these vaccines supposed to protect against the Delta variant? I know the answer to this one but want a baseline for what you are saying.

By the way, I'll be getting the booster when I'm supposed to as well. 

 

Thanks in advance!

[Norm]

16 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

It's definitely been on my ignore list for awhile. I suggest the same. Posts nothing of value.

CHICOMM CHICOMM CHICOMM CHICOMM CHICOMM CHICOMM 

[incognito_man]

1 minute ago, Old Guy said:

Are you saying people who have had COVID do not carry immunities for it?

No, I'm not saying that at all. 

This is what I'm saying: Vaccination Offers Higher Protection than Previous COVID-19 Infection

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.html

 

[Old Guy]

Just now, incognito_man said:

No, I'm not saying that at all. 

This is what I'm saying: Vaccination Offers Higher Protection than Previous COVID-19 Infection

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.html

 

OK thanks for clarifying. 

[{Family Ghost}]

38 minutes ago, 15412 said:

Sound asleep "woke" culture at it's finest.  How could they possibly pursue science when they only pursue their "chosen"science?

A preprint study from Maccabi Healthcare and Tel Aviv University in Israel could make waves in the COVID vaccination debate. The study suggests recovered coronavirus patients are 13 times less likely to be reinfected by the Delta variant than those who had received a two-dose regimen of the shot, while suggesting inoculation may add additional protection to the previously infected. 

“This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity,” the conclusion read. “Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.”

But we don't want people to get the virus to begin with .. it clogs up ICU's and leads to unnecessary deaths.  Just get the vaccinations to help protect yourself .. it's safe, free and easy.  

[15412]

I work with lots of people who are vaccinated.  I work with lots of people who are not vaccinated.   To consider science one must consider ALL science whether it agrees with your personal opinion or agenda no matter the issue.  It's as simple as that.  Also, if you really want to prevent such a pandemic from happening again then those responsible need to be held accountable by all, and they're not.  This is maybe the most important issue of all.   Bottom line it is a personal decision to get the shot or not, it is not the governments place to force such an action.  Not in a country where freedom and liberty are valued.  Should Cousins or Hopkins or Beasley and many other NFL players be banned because their own medical decision differs from that of the borg?  I think their attorneys would have a field day with that.

Edited September 2, 2021 by 15412

[15412]

6 minutes ago, {Family Ghost} said:

But we don't want people to get the virus to begin with .. it clogs up ICU's and leads to unnecessary deaths.  Just get the vaccinations to help protect yourself .. it's safe, free and easy.  

I don't disagree with that.  There is a lot of info to consider, and a lot more to learn yet.  It is a personal decision and it should be based on all the info at hand.  This latest discussion has more to with for those who already had the virus and what the science is learning about that.  I think it's very related to what NFL players are facing.

[Leader]

4 minutes ago, 15412 said:

 Should Cousins or Hopkins or Beasley and many other NFL players be banned because their own medical decision differs from that of the borg?  I think their attorneys would have a field day with that.

Actually, the right of private or commercial entities to enforce mandates is being upheld by the courts. So I think they're attorneys would have a field day billing for services rendered....after all, what attorney doesnt enjoy doing that (?).....but they'd probably lose in court.

[VicPez]

1 minute ago, 15412 said:

Bottom line it is a personal decision to get the shot or not, it is not the government place to force such an action.  Not in a country where freedom and liberty are valued.  Should Cousins or Hopkins or Beasley and many other NFL players be banned because their own medical decision differs from that of the borg?  I think their attorneys would have a field day with that, and they would.

It seems to me that you’re conflating three separate issues here.

1.) Should the government be able to mandate vaccination?

2.) Should employers be able to mandate vaccination, and terminate the employment of those who don’t get the vaccine?

3.) Should the NFL and its teams, who have a preexisting arrangement regarding vaccination status with the NFLPA, be able to mandate a vaccine or terminate employment based on vaccine status?

Each of these questions is different from the other.

[Arthur Penske]

1 hour ago, incognito_man said:

Science is fluid. Everytime I see a post that conflicts with the best information we have today in exchange for far, far worse pseudo-science I will continue to call it out and point readers to reality.

That's the point, the best information has turned out to be wrong here in some cases matter of days. Or in fact wrong the entire time, like anyone with a brain new was wrong when the WHO and CDC said it wasn't even contagious at various different stages in the beginning. The science isn't fluid here, those communicating it were and for  sometimes political purposes rather than scientific. 

 

[craig]

42 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

No, I'm not saying that at all. 

This is what I'm saying: Vaccination Offers Higher Protection than Previous COVID-19 Infection

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.html

 

Incog, the study cited in the link you gave does support the practical that getting the vaccine after having already gotten Covid does further amplify protection and further reduce risk.  So for the person who says "I've already had it, I don't need the vax", your link does provide data suggesting that getting vaccinated will add additional protection.  And for a state or an organization to say, "let's just require everybody to get vaccinated, whether they've already had Covid or not", your link is relevant.

But I don't think it really affirms the conclusion that "Vaccination Offers Higher Protection than Previous COVID-19 Infection"?  That statement seems to communicate that  if it's either one or the other, that the vaccination alone is more protective than previous-Covid alone.  That may or not be true, I don't know; but *IF* it's true, it's not proven by the study cited in that link.  So a better more relevant study should be found in order to make that claim?  If that makes sense?  

What that study shows is that protection is better with BOTH Covid-PLUS-Vaccination, compared to with Covid-only.  C+V > C only.  But it doesn't really address if it's a one-on-one between C or V, which is better.  Just that having both is better than just one.  

Like I said, it's totally relevant to people who have had Covid and are wondering whether to still get vaccinated besides, and to organizations deciding whether to require vaccination for everybody, including people who've already had Covid.  It just doesn't in itself say that vax on it's own protects better than previous-Covid on its own, if that makes sense? 

[vegas492]

1 hour ago, Dubz41 said:

 

Corporations are starting to charge more health premiums for folks who won't get vaccinated (like smokers who pay  more for their 'freedom to smoke'). 

 

Not disagreeing with your post.  

However, if corporations do in fact charge more in premiums to unvaccinated employees, that is a discriminatory violation of HIPAA.

"Since the passage of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) in 1996, insurers may not discriminate against individuals for plan eligibility, premiums or coverage based on a health-related factor. The passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2009 went even further: Insurers cannot vary premiums based on health status, gender, race, disability, among other factors."

When the ACA went into force, it allowed for nicotine users to be charged more, but that can only happen if the user does not participate in an alternative wellness program, like smoking cessation courses.  

Obviously there are grey areas, but simply charging more for unvaccinated employees is not allowed.  And if Delta Airlines goes through with it, there will be lawsuits.  And they will likely lose.  They will need to get really creative on how they structure that surcharge.  Or the law needs to change to allow for it, which is something I feel is a very real possibility.  Especially for those larger groups who self-fund their claims.

[AlexGreen#20]

34 minutes ago, 15412 said:

I work with lots of people who are vaccinated.  I work with lots of people who are not vaccinated.   To consider science one must consider ALL science whether it agrees with your personal opinion or agenda no matter the issue.  It's as simple as that.  Also, if you really want to prevent such a pandemic from happening again then those responsible need to be held accountable by all, and they're not.  This is maybe the most important issue of all.   Bottom line it is a personal decision to get the shot or not, it is not the governments place to force such an action.  Not in a country where freedom and liberty are valued.  Should Cousins or Hopkins or Beasley and many other NFL players be banned because their own medical decision differs from that of the borg?  I think their attorneys would have a field day with that.

I think you're as ignorant of the law as you are biology. 

[vegas492]

Just to add to it....Delta can, and employers can, offer employment conditional on many things.  I see where Delta is making vaccination necessary in order to be hired there.  

There is going to be a difference between how you treat potential new hires versus the existing work staff as it relates to benefits and possible health premium surcharges.

One such way that I feel a surcharge could work is this....Let's say the employer contributes 90% of the premium today for all tiers of health coverage.

At renewal time, they can amend their policy to say they will cover 50% of premiums for all tiers of coverage.  (As long as that meets the minimum definition of "affordable" under the ACA.) Then they can put in an incentive program that gifts vaccinated employees the extra 40% of premium, as well as giving 40% to employees who were unvaccinated but then decided to get vaccinated.