Cole Beasley announces he will not be following Covid protocols, willing to retire

[SCBills]

4 minutes ago, teef said:

didn't you make the comment before on this board that people who took the vaccine are, "just taking little scraps that that the government gives them".    don't be hyporcitical.

A) That’s not a personal attack.  B) I’m pretty sure that was in reference to the overall governmental response.  C) That’s why I admitted to being condescending and will try to reign that in. 

Now I will own getting personal in regards to the accusation of healthy people (vaccinated) vs “grifters of the healthcare system” (unvaccinated & happens to be myself).   I’ll own up to that.  It’s an observation that I believe has some veracity but I clearly don’t know what any of you look like/conduct your lifestyle as. 

 

Edited June 19, 2021 by SCBills

[Tommy Callahan]

19 minutes ago, Governor said:

If Cole walks into a children’s leukemia hospital unvaccinated and gives Covid to 3 kids, and 2 of them die, he didn’t kill those 2 kids? Of course he did.

 

We’re in the “shaming” stage of the pandemic recovery. The next step is criminal prosecution.

 

It’s amazing to me that people thought they’d just blend in and not get vaccinated after everything we’ve just gone through as a nation. That was never going to be an option.

Hospitals still require mask.  He should choose not to go in.  

[Dopey]

1 minute ago, SCBills said:

I’ve certainly let myself get condescending at times in this thread, and will try to do better in defense of my position (and therefore Cole’s) - but it’s pretty clear that one side views themselves as morally superior on this issue and thus any pushback, at all, is worthy of personal insults.  

 I'm vaccinated. My daughter, her husband and the grandkids are not. Any references to them or anyone being an idiot or selfish is coming from a selfish idiot.

[machine gun kelly]

1 hour ago, SCBills said:

I’m sure this has been shared somewhere in the thread, but this is what Cole is referring to….  Seems pretty heavy handed, and most likely is intended to force, without forcing, players to get vaccinated.  

 

With a vaccine, we were all told life could go back to normal.  Yet here we are, with a vaccine, and certain segments of society refuse to relinquish control.  
 

Still hoping to have this question answered.. Are these protocols permanent?   2022 and beyond?  If not, this is all theater. 
 

 

Where the rubber meets the road is the actions, not discussions from the Pegulas, Beane, McD, and even the good guy cop of Daboll (referencing how coordinators a lot of times play good cop to the HC bad cop or GM).  Will the heads of the organization be willing with all players, not just Beasely as he shouldn’t be singled out, for strictly enforcing the non vacc. Rules.  Will they maintain a list, and at the first glimpse of any player not following the right side protocols send them home, or even send them him from an away game.

 

If they do so, then Beasely will be tested for brash words on Twitter.  He’ll have to walk the walk.

 

I was going to get out of this, but then I keep reading interesting takes on both sides.  Either way, I do appreciate you’re opinions wherever you fall on the topic.  Mine is not at all whether to take a shot, but just follow what you have to do if you choose not to get a vaccine.  The choice should always be the persons in a limited tested and surveilled medicine.  I seriously doubt we re talking about this in 12 months.

[teef]

3 minutes ago, SCBills said:

A) That’s not a personal attack.  B) I’m pretty sure that was in reference to the overall governmental response.  C) That’s why I admitted to being condescending and will try to reign that in. 

Now I will own getting personal in regards to healthy people (vaccinated) vs grifters of the healthcare system (unvaccinated).   I’ll own up to that. 
 

fair enough.  i do enjoy your bills posting.

[YoloinOhio]

12 minutes ago, Draconator said:

Well, this thread did something the Ertz thread couldn't do. Reach 50 pages. Ertz has failed us! 

He needs to start tweeting more so we can judge him properly 

[Rocky Landing]

This "debate" (quotations seem weirdly necessary) reminds me of the seatbelt law, in a way. You can't make a reasonable argument that wearing a seatbelt doesn't decrease the risk of injury. But, the fact that the government made it a law-- effectively passing a law that protects me from myself-- has never quite sat too well with me.

 

Similarly, you can't make a reasonable argument that getting vaccinated doesn't decrease the risk of getting very sick, possibly with long-term consequences. It clearly does. But, the heavy handed nature, and the fact that it became so politicized doesn't sit well with some people.

 

Personally, I wear seatbelts, and have been vaccinated purely for reducing my own risk, and risk to my family. The rest I can ignore.

 

Of course, seatbelt laws were passed, not to protect us from ourselves, but to protect the interests of insurance companies. And, vaccines protect us all.

 

 

 

Edited June 19, 2021 by Rocky Landing

[machine gun kelly]

3 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

He needs to start tweeting more so we can judge him properly 

I cracked up on that one Yolo.  I swear this thread is like a car crash.  You hate when everyone slows down and delays you, but then you do it too, even a little.

 

Now what the hedouble hockey stick is going on with Ertz.  House wants to know and his leg hurts over it.

[stevewin]

13 hours ago, Warcodered said:

 

The issue with that is some people can't get vaccinated and have to rely on the rest of the group as a whole to get the vaccinated level high enough to protect them.

 

Also the more the virus is allowed to spread the more likely it is that it'll mutate in such away to get around the current vaccines.

These are the exact two points that I've been thinking about a lot reading some of the responses in this thread (from people on both "pro" and "anti" vax side)

 

Last month I was back in Buffalo and ran into an old friend from the neighborhood I grew up in (57 yrs old), who I hadn't seen in years.  Three years ago he was diagnosed with liver and pancreatic cancer.  He went to live in a hotel near the Cleveland Clinic for a year - getting chemo and radiation off and on and literally slowly dying waiting for a liver donor.  His weight went down to under 100 lbs, and eventually he was told he had two weeks to live if a donor couldn't be found.  Ultimately his wife's best friend stepped in and gave him part of her liver.  When I saw him it was two years since his operation, and he was just getting back to 'normal'.  As part of the transplant they also removed his pancreas and his stomach.  He takes a daily cocktail of drugs and immunosuppressants, which he will have to do for the rest of his life.  After all he'd been through, his outlook on life was so upbeat and positive - it was truly inspirational.  He is one of the at risk people who will remain vulnerable even with the vaccine.   

 

It is not as simple as saying "I don't want to take it, - if you want to protect yourself just get it yourself" 

 

The mutations are the other thing that I'm not sure most people fully consider.  The more people that contract the virus, statistically the greater chance of a mutation eventually developing from a single blip in mother nature's cosmos that the existing vaccines might not protect against (as I type this, the virus is replicating billions and billions of times in millions of currently infected people).

 

It's not as simple as saying "just let all the healthy unvaccinated people get it, we'll be fine - and we'll develop herd immunity, and everyone who is vaccinated will be perfectly safe".  The less people who actually get infected, the lower the possibility of a variant emerging that the current vaccines do not protect against (imagine what will occur if that happens)

 

 

Edited June 19, 2021 by stevewin

[dave mcbride]

2 minutes ago, Rocky Landing said:

This "debate" (quotations seem weirdly necessary) reminds me of the seatbelt law, in a way. You can't make a reasonable argument that wearing a seatbelt doesn't decrease the risk of injury. But, the fact that the government made it a law-- effectively passing a law that protects me from myself-- has never quite sat too well with me.

 

Similarly, you can't make a reasonable argument that getting vaccinated doesn't decrease the risk of getting very sick, possibly with long-term consequences. But, the heavy handed nature, and the fact that it came so politicized doesn't sit well with some people.

 

Personally, I wear seatbelts, and have been vaccinated purely for reducing my own risk, and risk to my family. The rest I can ignore.

 

Of course, seatbelt laws were passed, not to protect us from ourselves, but to protect the interests of insurance companies. And, vaccines protect us all.

There is a difference. In not wearing a seatbelt, you basically put yourself at risk but not others. 

[machine gun kelly]

2 minutes ago, Rocky Landing said:

This "debate" (quotations seem weirdly necessary) reminds me of the seatbelt law, in a way. You can't make a reasonable argument that wearing a seatbelt doesn't decrease the risk of injury. But, the fact that the government made it a law-- effectively passing a law that protects me from myself-- has never quite sat too well with me.

 

Similarly, you can't make a reasonable argument that getting vaccinated doesn't decrease the risk of getting very sick, possibly with long-term consequences. But, the heavy handed nature, and the fact that it came so politicized doesn't sit well with some people.

 

Personally, I wear seatbelts, and have been vaccinated purely for reducing my own risk, and risk to my family. The rest I can ignore.

 

Of course, seatbelt laws were passed, not to protect us from ourselves, but to protect the interests of insurance companies. And, vaccines protect us all.

RL, who are you kidding, you wear a seatbelt because of that annoying beeping. 😎😀

 

[Pokebball]

12 minutes ago, Chris farley said:

Hospitals still require mask.  He should choose not to go in.  

All hospitals I'm familiar with are not requiring shots nor are they requiring staff to wear masks when they're out in public.

[Draconator]

As much as I love Cole for his football play, and as much as I respect him for being vocal on his opinions (although I may not agree with them), I'm going to use a tag line from this current Bills organization if this turns ever uglier and Cole's position creates a even larger distraction.

 

"Next Man Up"

[Magox]

31 minutes ago, PastaJoe said:

There is no proof of natural immunity among the unvaccinated, and in fact those are the vast majority of new Covid cases. And the new Delta variant is more transmissible than previous strains. 
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wwltv.com/amp/article/news/health/coronavirus/vaccine/almost-all-covid-cases-now-occurring-in-those-not-vaccinated-studies-show/289-50b9238f-8a62-4b9c-a031-5e91de7daaac

Unless I am misunderstanding what you mean by natural immunity, but previous COVID infection does offer natural immunity.  The only question is for how long?  We know it's for at least up to close to a year and possibly a lifetime.

Quote

 

Immunity to the coronavirus lasts at least a year, possibly a lifetime, improving over time especially after vaccination, according to two new studies. The findings may help put to rest lingering fears that protection against the virus will be short-lived.

Together, the studies suggest that most people who have recovered from Covid-19 and who were later immunized will not need boosters. Vaccinated people who were never infected most likely will need the shots, however, as will a minority who were infected but did not produce a robust immune response.

 

 

This doesn't even take into account all the t cell immunities that are provided by natural immunity which is seen to be very effective against variants. 

 

Quote

 

Alongside antibodies, the immune system produces a battalion of T cells that can target viruses. Some of these, known as killer T cells (or CD8+ T cells), seek out and destroy cells that are infected with the virus. Others, called helper T cells (or CD4+ T cells) are important for various immune functions, including stimulating the production of antibodies and killer T cells.

 

T cells do not prevent infection, because they kick into action only after a virus has infiltrated the body. But they are important for clearing an infection that has already started. In the case of COVID-19, killer T cells could mean the difference between a mild infection and a severe one that requires hospital treatment, says Annika Karlsson, an immunologist at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm. “If they are able to kill the virus-infected cells before they spread from the upper respiratory tract, it will influence how sick you feel,” she says. They could also reduce transmission by restricting the amount of virus circulating in an infected person, meaning that the person sheds fewer virus particles into the community.

 

T cells could also be more resistant than antibodies to threats posed by emerging variants. Studies by Sette and his colleagues have shown that people who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 typically generate T cells that target at least 15–20 different fragments of coronavirus proteins1. But which protein snippets are used as targets can vary widely from person to person, meaning that a population will generate a large variety of T cells that could snare a virus. “That makes it very hard for the virus to mutate to escape cell recognition,” says Sette, “unlike the situation for antibodies.”

 

 

 

[plenzmd1]

59 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

He may not yet be two weeks removed from his 2nd shot 

could be...and we have no clue...i hope he gets it, but guess we will know first practice of TC one way or tother!

[dave mcbride]

28 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

1939 Germany called and would like their Fuehrer back....

Godwin’s law was a predictable outcome for this thread …

[FireChans]

38 minutes ago, Governor said:

If Cole walks into a children’s leukemia hospital unvaccinated and gives Covid to 3 kids, and 2 of them die, he didn’t kill those 2 kids? Of course he did.

 

We’re in the “shaming” stage of the pandemic recovery. The next step is criminal prosecution.

 

It’s amazing to me that people thought they’d just blend in and not get vaccinated after everything we’ve just gone through as a nation. That was never going to be an option.

Good thing Cole is a wide receiver and not a pediatric oncologist.

[Mojo44]

6 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

There is a difference. In not wearing a seatbelt, you basically put yourself at risk but not others. 

Actually, the point of seatbelt laws and, for that matter, motorcycle helmet laws, it’s not to protect the individual but the rest of us from a financial perspective. If somebody suffers a severe injury because they were not wearing a seatbelt or a motorcycle helmet their medical care has to be paid for. If they don’t have insurance, the rest of us pay for it and insurance rates go up. That is the whole point of these laws. They are not so-called “nanny state“ laws.

[Sherlock Holmes]

16 minutes ago, teef said:

fair enough.  i do enjoy your bills posting.

Get a room you two🤮 Also don't mind me in the closet...

[dave mcbride]

Just now, Mojo44 said:

Actually, the point of seatbelt laws and, for that matter, motorcycle helmet laws, it’s not to protect the individual but the rest of us from a financial perspective. If somebody suffers a severe injury because they were not wearing a seatbelt or a motorcycle helmet their medical care has to be paid for. If they don’t have insurance, the rest of us pay for it and insurance rates go up. That is the whole point of these laws. They are not so-called “nanny state“ laws.

Fair point. I was speaking more of actual physical harm to others, but you’re not wrong.