billsfan5121
-
Posts
321 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by billsfan5121
-
-
6 hours ago, Sundancer said:
I wonder if you're smart enough to understand the differences between what is happening now and polio/measles/smallpox.
My guess is no, but no worries, there were anti-vaccine folks for those vaccines as well. They look as dumb in retrospect as the covid antivax apologists will look.
If this disease were killing kids at the same rate it was killing old people, the drive to get everyone vaccinated would be in feverish gear. We'd be praising science and trying to create herd immunity to protect kids.
But we don't care about old and at risk folks.
More assumptions. I’ve already stated I’m not antivax and I have all vaccines as do my children. But being forced to take something that might cause an issue down the road is not ok.
Ive given my concerns, but since my concerns aren’t in line with how you think, you jump to this conclusion that I must be dumb. I’m probably a Trump following, right wing conspiracy theorist? I guess stereotyping is ok now?
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:
So all you can do is criticize the guy trying to get people to protect themselves and kiss the behind of the guy who let it get out of control to begin with and lied to the American people as recorded by Woodward. Got it.
Oldmanfan - “we shouldn’t make this political.”
Hours later- this beauty
-
33 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:
First this is not a drug, it is a vaccine. Second, no one including me has ever said that we can guarantee with 100% confidence that there will not be an untoward side effect. In fact, because of the strenuous system that has been put in place by different regulatory agencies around the world, the very rare cases of blood clots with the J&J vaccine and myocarditis with Moderna and Phizef were found.
As for 10-15 years from now, let’s look at results from other vaccines first. We have never seen side effects crop up with any at that time frame after immunization. And if you can find one let me know. The rare side effects that have been seen from past vaccines were all seen within weeks, as again were the rare ones with the Covid vaccines.
Now let’s focus on the mRNA ones since they are “new”. First they are not new, decades of research have gone into them but yes, this is the first clinical application. These vaccines have the mRNA, some lipids for solubility, and salts. Which of those scientifically would cause an incident 10 years later? Lipids or salts ? How? The mRNA is translated into the spike
protein, then degraded. It does not alter your DNA at all and is not gene therapy, and if you are a scientist and have ever taken introductory cell or molecular biology you know this.
Have there been bad drugs that even after all the clinical trials came up with really bad side effects that weren’t found? Yes. Thalidomide is the one always quoted and after that regulatory requirements were tightened. I sit on an FDA devices panel and the regulatory requirements are very strict. But even with that there could be an extraordinarily rare event. One was the COX inhibitors for as anti-inflammatories which had to be pulled within months when folks started having heart attacks. Again this was found within months, not 10-15 years later.
You say you are a scientist so you should know science and medicine are rarely 100% fields, unless you are talking about things like the law of gravity. Medicine is, as I have now said numerous times, is about benefit vs. risk. There is no question that the vaccine benefit far outweighs the risk. There is no question masks help alleviate droplet spread, or that social distancing helps prevent spread. But the same folks who deny the science of vaccines deny those as well. And it’s because of politics. And if you’re a scientist, you should look at the data and not play political games.
I did not say I was a scientist. I said I was asking you the researcher and then addressed myself as someone concerned about the vaccine. And I ask questions the way I do because I am genuinely concerned about long term effects of the vaccine, not because I am antivax. But because I’m genuinely concerned, I get called antivax or an idiot by people who claim to be professionals in the field. You will never have an open dialogue about something you feel so passionate about when you belittle the very people you claim to care about.
So again, I am not a scientist. I am not a researcher. However, I am not antivax nor an idiot simply because I have real concerns. I am highly educated in a non-science field so I would be more than happy to have a real conversation. Quit dismissing people and listen to the concerns. It will work much better for you in the long run. This is just a message board but we are all people, no different than your own family and friends.
Also, the pill to help quit smoking, Chantix, was approved (2006) and effects were not realized until last month, 15 years later, so it does happen.
-
38 minutes ago, Sundancer said:
Since you frame this so childishly, here’s what I can say with 100% certainty and without a shadow of a doubt: Anyone who gets the vaccine will dramatically lower their own chance of dying and going to the hospital, and significantly lower their ability to transmit and kill other people, including those at risk and other unvaccinated folk.Can you make the same statement 100% without a shadow of a doubt about unvaccinated people? No, you cannot.
Stop thinking with your Twitter MD and listen to the scientists. This antivax anti science movement is strongest here in the USA. Being anti progress is nothing to be proud of.
Considering this message board is the only form of “social media” I use, your stereotype that I must be antivax and get my information from social media is false.
Also, you say I asked childishly. You are right but I did that because I was quoting a childish reply. Is it not childish to say “too many idiots” because their opinion differs? Or is that ok because its coming from your side of a debate?
I have been vaccinated for everything that’s required since birth, and so have my children. I apologize that I live a healthy lifestyle and follow all protocols that have been passed down since day one, so either those protocols are keeping me and the public safe, or you need to admit they are pointless. You can choose.
By the way, you’re promoting the vaccine on social media in the form of a discussion board. I guess because it’s your opinion that makes it ok if I got my info from social media?
You should also quit saying to trust science when science changes through research. Because science say “_____” today does not mean that holds true for eternity. I assume you know that though and are simply choosing to ignore that little bit of truth.
Also while you’re on your high horse caring about all of society and what prevents hospitalization, I assume you’re a big advocate for diet and exercise, seeing how heart disease is the number one killer in the US. I’m well aware heart disease isn’t contagious, but you’re telling me I should get the vaccine to lower the chances of hospitalization. Do you care about the other choices I make in life?
Another issue I have is the claim that the unvaccinated are the ones spreading it. Let me ask this. If breakthrough infections happen, we can say with certainty that vaccinated people can still get COVID. But we will hear that it’s far less. How can we know that? If it most often keeps you asymptomatic, how do we know how many people get breakthrough infections? It’s not as if you randomly decide to get tested for the fun of it. So if there’s only reports of __ number of people, wouldn’t it stand to reason that it’s much higher? So the vaccinated are spreading it as well.
Also, if you’re vaccinated, why do you care so much what someone else does? Do you worry about people who may or may not have their polio vaccine? Measles? My guess is no. But why not?
Now you might say that some people cannot get vaccinated because of a condition. Why does this condition matter more than others? Do you only eat peanuts in your house out of fear that someone near you might be highly allergic? You are picking the vaccine to make a stand when there are likely other areas of your life that would suggest you don’t always care how your decisions effect other people.Also in your rebuttal, you simply tried to turn it on me but you never answered. Can we be 100% certain the vaccine will not cause problems down the road?
Lastly, too many people out there go out to dinner and bars and consume alcohol, then drive home putting other people at risk. I believe we should ban alcohol because it is a risk to you and others around you. Would that be ok?
-
3 hours ago, oldmanfan said:
Because you have too many idiots in this country who refuse to believe science and instead make this into a ridiculous political issue.
I don’t. I want everyone who isn’t vaccinated to do so. You are against everything that could help, vaccines, masks, etc. As near as I can tell you’d be fine with your loved ones dying as long as it met with your political views.
Here’s where I have a problem. Someone is an idiot if they are concerned about a new vaccine?
Ive followed this thread for a while now and I see you are in a research field and have no problems telling us all how qualified you are to make assertions about the vaccine.
So I am coming to you, who is a qualified researcher in the science field as someone who is concerned with the vaccine. All I ask is you answer honestly and don’t attack. I’m willing to listen.
So with that said, can you answer 2 simple questions.
1) with your acquired knowledge and years of research, can you say with 100% certainty that we can know without a shadow of a doubt that this vaccine WILL NOT cause other medical problems 10 years from now, 15 years from now, etc.?
2) if you can answer yes to that claim, why would it be different this time vs others when drugs were deemed safe and were approved for use by our very own government, only to be found to cause other health problems after more research and years of being in use?
-
6 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:
Those are voluntary choices. A viral pandemic is not. Does that really need to be pointed out? Seriously?
So I can voluntarily throw my life away with poor eating habits and smoking with no exercise and take up a room in the hospital, but I cannot be concerned with a vaccine that was rushed to market? Got it
-
3 minutes ago, ALF said:
The unvaccinated are stressing the hospital system and raising the cost of healthcare insurance.
So are the smokers and obese. Where’s the outcry or government mandates?
-
1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:
This is the most ridiculous thing you’ve posted yet. And that’s saying something.
Equally ridiculous.
How is it ridiculous? It’s still spreading.
-
7 minutes ago, BillStime said:
Funny how none of the three have done anything.
-
1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:
Good points all, especially the examples at the end. Clearly the data in younger individuals is much more comforting inbb by that they are at much less risk of death. My larger concern in younger groups who contract the disease and the resulting potential morbidity. There was just a study this week suggesting Covid infection might link to increased risk of diabetes. We don’t know long term what will happen.
Of course some say the same about the vaccine, but given the nature of the vaccine and historical data on side effects it just is not an issue. Side effects from vaccines are rare, and show up within weeks. And the myocarditis and blood clot issues with the J & J are examples where they were found quickly.
It comes down to benefit vs. risk and the data are clear. But convincing the younger group is hard as you indicate.
Here’s the problem. For many of us, we don’t get to weigh the benefit vs the risk for ourselves. Instead, we are being forced to take something, even if we counted the cost. And when people are hesitant, it’s not so much is it safe today. We all know people who have been vaccinated and are still here and seemingly healthy. We believe that there’s a chance that there could be future repercussions because say what you want about science, it CANNOT accurately predict future outcomes. It can provide info to make a guess, but it’s not guaranteed. What is deemed safe today can be found to be dangerous later. There are examples of that and the FDA approving things that turned out to be dangerous. So vaccine approvals don’t mean much to some people.
-
20 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:
can someone explain to me why in CA Newsom has said once approved , all children must be vaccinated in order to go to class. No exceptions
But right now, with a fully approved vaccine, teachers have a choice to either get vaxxed or test weekly.
Someone please explain how this is not 100% political, and why someone who has children is a California school should trust anything Newsom does on the pandemic.
BTW, the other powerful union in the state, the correctional officers union...and guess what...in what is quite possibly the best breeding ground of Covid imaginable, Newsom was against mandated the officers to get vaxxed.
HMMM..sure not political
What I want to know is if California is similar to Virginia in that middle school is 6th to 8th grade, meaning students range from 11 years old to 13 years old. Since 12 and up is eligible, that means 2/3s will be required while 1/3 won’t. If COVID is that dangerous for children, why isn’t K - 6th grade mandatory at home learning so they arent mixed with the vaccinated? The rules people are making are simply arbitrary and have changed throughout this whole pandemic. Then we hear that they change because more is learned as we go, but then we hear trust the science, which they just admitted that it changed. I’m sick of hearing trust the science when science is constantly changing.
I don’t post in this section often but I’m still waiting for anyone to comment how Chantix - made by Phizer - was recalled after they figured out after 15 years it causes cancer. However, it was deemed safe and FDA approved in May 2006. Just because they feel something is safe today does not mean we won’t learn later that there’s a problem.
-
1
-
-
Tim Taylor
Doug Heffernan
Al Bundy
-
18 minutes ago, BillStime said:
Just look at red states to see actual alarming stats of impoverished, imprisoned and uneducated.Hey look, stereotyping someone because they are of a certain race or nationality is so wrong and cannot be tolerated.
Same people. If you are a conservative, you’re just an uneducated Trump follower.
Also, systematic racism is real and is holding people down.
Same people. Let’s keep voting in the same party that has controlled that “system” for decades.
Here’s another that I just heard last weekend - I don’t understand why anyone wouldn’t take the vaccine to prevent a disease that might damage your lungs and put you on a ventilator.
Same person - told me this after coming back inside from a smoke break.
That last one was not a joke. It literally happened. Shook my head and walked away.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, All_Pro_Bills said:
That all makes sense. And I generally agree with your posts. For me the main point of contention is the governments official policy that insists that only the vaccine can provide any protection from the virus. No exceptions. No natural immunity exceptions, no exceptions for low-risk individuals, no exceptions for treatment options, no exceptions for anything. Get vaccinated or else. Lose your freedoms, lose you job, lose your life. Do what we say. Anyone that questions this is called either stupid or uninformed.
Even though the vaccine does not provide immunity. It provides protection as vaccinated people can get sick and in some cases die. Even though the vaccine does not stop transmission. Vaccinated people can infect others. Even though it does not kill the virus. Vaccinated people can carry a viral load.
This policy claims to be supported by science. Science that is conveniently used or ignored as necessary. Much of the science is in obvious conflict with this policy. This policy is not medically driven. Its is politically and socially driven. Getting vaccinated is most likely a good idea for most people. But the government's official policy is dysfunctional.
So what I don’t understand about the science issue is science is always changing, so how can we trust what we know today to be safe down the road?
Case and point- In May 2006, the FDA approved Chantix as a safe drug to help adults quit smoking. It was approved. It was safe. It was effective. Fast forward 15 years and guess what, Phizer had to recall it less than two weeks ago because NOW they realize it causes cancer.
THIS is what people are worried about with the vaccine. Not Biden. Not Trump. Not Fauci. I get MRNA has been studied for years. Has it ever been injected in humans safely prior to Covid? I don’t believe it has.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Doc Brown said:
Logistics. Natural immunity from prior Covid infection is harder to study and track. People could simply lie and say they already tested positive for Covid. There's also only upside in getting the vaccine even if you already had Covid as numerous studies have showed substantial antibody response for those who've had Covid and then were vaccinated (compared to unvaccinated previously infected people vs. only vaccination people). If the goal is to prevent as many people as possible from contracting the virus, it makes sense from a policy perspective to mandate vaccines whether you were previously infected or not. They are following the science in that regard.
I have a dumb question. So I see this and also heard yesterday that there is no reliable way of testing antibodies to see if someone who had a previous infection had the antibodies, resulting in immunity. If that were the case, how do you test the antibodies of vaccinated people to know they have antibodies for immunity?
-
How convenient. As he nears retirement (inevitable), he thinks defenses get flagged too much. I bet he’d love for the league to go back to the old style of play to ensure his records are never touched.
-
Didn’t read the article but it seems it mentions a first place schedule? If so, who cares that it’s first place as that’s by title only. Would anyone really rather play dallas than Washington, Baltimore vs Pittsburgh for us? Sure, we get the chiefs but the other two “first place games” are easier than had we had the second place schedule. So add that to the fact that Miami and NE play us twice vs us playing them, plus they get Cleveland and Baltimore vs Steelers, and I’d say we are in much better shape schedule wise.
-
3
-
1
-
-
When I was younger, I’d go to the bar at 12:30 and stay till midnight. Now, with wife and kids, I watch Bills games and barely get to watch much else. Not that I’m not allowed, but I don’t want to miss out on time with wife and kids for a game that has no real impact on my life.
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, Hermes said:
The way the draft is looking I think it would be beneficial to trade up in the 2nd and 3rd rounds to ensure the Bills get contributors.
How this gets accomplished is a bit of a conundrum.. so I got to thinking how to make this work.
The idea that sprung to mind was to trade next year's 1st, this year's 2nd, 3rd, 5ths, and 6th for a 2nd next year, and a 2nd, 3rd, and 4th this year.
It would have to be after a few picks go in the 2nd tonight but I think the value is close. It would look something like this when it's all said and done
Bills receive Team X (Carolina) receives
39 61
73 93
113 161
174
213
2022 2nd 2022 1st
The draft is light on talent this year with all of the opt outs and next year should have higher end players available in the second compared to this year. So the drop off isn't as significant losing a first next year since more (better) players will be available. The likelihood of this happening is probably negligible but a man can dream
If next years second round will have more talent than this years second, why in the world would we trade a first (which if the 2nd round is stacked, wouldn’t the 1st be even better) next year to draft in a “light” second round this year? You basically are saying you want to move up in an already weak class.
-
Just now, Inigo Montoya said:
The Patriots draft Mac Jones, QB, Alabama.
Sports commentators commence a ball washing of epic, even Biblical proportions, of Bill Belichick who has "outsmarted the entire NFL again!"
Patriots now favored to win the AFCE by the talking heads on ESPN.
I can see this. And the narrative is Belichick intentionally waited for the 2021 class to get his guy (sort of like how we passed on 2017 for 2018) instead of settling for someone in 2020 draft.
-
The best part about this is we finally shouldn’t care if we have the best RB. For years it’s like we wanted the best. Sure, it would be a nice supplement to our passing game now, but as last year proved, we don’t really even need it to be good.
-
The one thing I hope we come out of the draft with is a new starting QB. Allen had 21 dropped INTs, and that’s unacceptable.
In reality though, I hope we come out with an impact starting player. No clue who that is as I did not watch much college, and have paid less attention to the draft this year as any other year I can remember.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
6
-
-
1 minute ago, Wsam4031 said:
thats a pretty dumb statement. there should be consequences for me not wanting their trial vaccine. should just have to prove you dont have the virus.
Thank you. To me, it’s almost like the thought is, “the vaccine isn’t mandatory, but you’re just not allowed to do anything if you don’t get it.”
I will stay out of politics, because this isn’t the place for it. But there are some who don’t want to get it because it’s literally 14 months in the making.
My biggest contention with it all is how can anyone say it’s effective and works, but then those who are vaccinated still have to live life the same way as those who aren’t? If it’s because they can still carry it, well isn’t that the problem of those who CHOSE not to get it? If you chose not to, then you understand the consequences of contracting the virus.
So I don’t understand why we can’t get back to normal, and let those who are vaccinated feel safe, while those who aren’t live with the decision to skip the vaccine. If you could get the vaccine and live life normal again because it worked, then I’d sign up. Until then, the life of a vaccinated person is absolutely no different than mine.
I’ll wait for the attacks now!!
-
6 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:
Worked to help John Brown get a decent contract with the Bills, which helped him get a decent contract with the Raiders so ??
Yeah, but all of his Baltimore production was with Flacco. So I get what he’s saying.
-
1
-
It's Time to Mandate Vaccines
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
How am I antivaccine when I have stated numerous times that I am vaccinated for everything required other than Covid, and my kids who are both elementary age are vaccinated? Can you read? I chose to have them vaccinated. I didn’t have to. They are homeschooled, yet they were vaccinated because I felt that they are proven safe.
Being concerned with new medicine does not make one against it. I’m glad that millions of people feel safe with it. I am concerned with long term effects. The same long term effects that your “science” has failed to identify in the early stages for other medicine.
But since my opinion differs from yours, again, that makes me the ignorant one. I cannot figure out why we live in a world where expression and inclusiveness is such a big topic that everyone is on board with……until it’s not their opinion.
As a vaccine promoter, you do such a terrible job of having a rational discussion and trying to have a real conversation about the vaccine. I am losing count of how many times I’ve had to say I’m not antivax, yet there’s a few people who want to throw that label around ignorantly because they can’t read.
You do more harm than good for the very product you try to promote. You sound like a child who reverts to name calling when someone doesn’t agree with you.