Jump to content
RED

Max Dean to Penn State?

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, TBar1977 said:

policy makers need to take their masks off outdoors at a minimum just to set a more positive tone. Being all masked up while walking across the lawn isn't helping. 

would agree with this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dman115 said:

 At what point to we stop letting the extremes drive policy for the majority??

At the risk of going even further off the rails - +1 to this.  Fox News and CNN/MSNBC all pushing the extreme agendas, and making the argument the you are either one of us, or one of them.  There is no acceptance for a middle ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, red blades said:

At the risk of going even further off the rails - +1 to this.  Fox News and CNN/MSNBC all pushing the extreme agendas, and making the argument the you are either one of us, or one of them.  There is no acceptance for a middle ground.

A good friend of mine is in the "trump can do no wrong" camp.  I personally was in favor of Trump at the beginning of term, or should I say in favor of Trump policies.....not so much in favor during the covid response......very much not in favor with the Jan 6 fiasco.  My friend can not get a grip on how I can like his policies on trade, manufacturing, immigration, etc.... but "turn against him" when it comes to the following issues.  He literally said "you can't have it both ways, its either all or nothing".  It is very much that and what I've talked about before in here, operating at either end of the extreme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Lurker said:

He literally said "you can't have it both ways, its either all or nothing". 

I get the same reaction from so-called progressive friends when I say defunding the police is a bad idea.

To bring this back a little bit on topic - From Gabe Dean's interview, I really do wonder if the family leaving Cornell (and it clearly was a family decision) was due as much to the broader political climate at Cornell as to the specific Covid policies - there are other things going on there recently that may have pushed them away.

Edited by red blades

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Le duke said:

Yes, I know that. Which is why I said "it doesn't stop you from getting infected", which is not mutually exclusive to "less likely to get infected".

However, their statement seems to conflict with yours. They are including the word "symptomatic" in there for a reason. Maybe I'm wrong. 

 

All authorized COVID-19 vaccines demonstrated efficacy (range 65% to 95%) against symptomatic, laboratory-confirmed COVID-19.

  • For each authorized COVID-19 vaccine, the overall efficacy was similar to the efficacy across different populations, including elderly and younger adults, in people with and without underlying health conditions, and in people representing different races and ethnicities.

All authorized COVID-19 vaccines demonstrated high efficacy (≥89%) against COVID-19 severe enough to require hospitalization.

Not taking sides on this back and forth, just clarifying.... Symptomatic is the key word there. Estimates for what percentage of total infections are asymptomatic vary, from 20ish % to as high as 60ish %. These studies (rightfully) focused on containing severe outcomes, hence, the "symptomatic" qualifier.

That said, the numbers at the highest level don't lie. Vaccines are not perfect, but they are by far the best way to contain the virus, virtually eliminating severe outcomes and dramatically reducing spread. My theory as to why you can get it with the vaccine but are much less likely to transmit it is that there is a threshold level of virus concentration in your body ("viral load") that is required for you to be infectious, and vaccinated people who get infected are far less likely to transmit the virus because their viral load is usually not high enough to be infectious. In other words, you can get COVID and not be infectious if you have a low viral load.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, TBar1977 said:

Btw, the rate at which vaccinations are occurring is slowing down as they are now butting up against those segments of the population that are reluctant to take it. 

Virtue signaling policy makers need to take their masks off outdoors at a minimum just to set a more positive tone. Being all masked up while walking across the lawn isn't helping. 

I agree with this. Effective public health measures MUST consider not just the scientific evidence, but the practical reality of the American zeitgeist. If you are vaccinated, it is much less likely that you will spread the virus. Allowing vaccinated people to be maskless, even all the time, might be what picks vaccination rates back up. Yes, some risk incurred, but let's not be penny wise and pound foolish. The ultimate goal is to get vaccination rates up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to take this thread off topic, but the FRL guys were saying that the Cornell wrestlers were not exactly cheerfully waving and telling Max (and Gabe) bon voyage over him leaving to go to Penn State.  Any word on the specifics of that?  They said it was on Twitter, and a quick perusal (while at work, so I'm limited, and can't listen to the rest of the pod right now since I'm in a Zoom conference) of what they're talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

Sorry to take this thread off topic, but the FRL guys were saying that the Cornell wrestlers were not exactly cheerfully waving and telling Max (and Gabe) bon voyage over him leaving to go to Penn State.  Any word on the specifics of that?  They said it was on Twitter, and a quick perusal (while at work, so I'm limited, and can't listen to the rest of the pod right now since I'm in a Zoom conference) of what they're talking about?

I know they posted Yianni's screenshot from the school prez saying they plan to compete next year (with some frog + cup of tea emoji), not sure if they were talking about anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

Sorry to take this thread off topic, but the FRL guys were saying that the Cornell wrestlers were not exactly cheerfully waving and telling Max (and Gabe) bon voyage over him leaving to go to Penn State.  Any word on the specifics of that?  They said it was on Twitter, and a quick perusal (while at work, so I'm limited, and can't listen to the rest of the pod right now since I'm in a Zoom conference) of what they're talking about?

I would imagine Stalemates will have a quick video up in the next few days to go over the social media reaction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, red blades said:

At the risk of going even further off the rails - +1 to this.  Fox News and CNN/MSNBC all pushing the extreme agendas, and making the argument the you are either one of us, or one of them.  There is no acceptance for a middle ground.

Spot on red blades...couldn't agree more!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, klehner said:

That's not what anyone is saying.  You were saying that the 95% means it reduced *infection* by 95%, when that is not the case and not what that number means.  We are trying to point out to you the actual meaning of the statistic.  Do you understand the difference?

Man...how about this...so what is your point you are trying to make??  The semantics on how terms are being used versus what the actual argument is in using the numbers.  I can guarantee I am using the number in the correct context/definition to come up with the OPINION that people that are vaccinated should not have to wear masks...the risk is so freaking low that the benefits of not outweigh the risks...especially when the "science" even says so.  You and Le duke think the CDC isn't saying something that they are absolutely saying...just as Billy and I have tried to explain...instead you try the ole, you are using this term versus this term and that term means this...forget about if it is "infection" versus  "symptomatic infection" versus "asymptomatic infection"...not that the definitions aren't important as they are, but holy crap...you both are trying to say that being vaccinated does not help[ stop the spread (or excuse me...reduce the chance for spread...eye roll) when the very link Le duke posted says the exact opposite of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Questions for everyone...do you think we...or I should say the CDC....should take into consideration the percentage of people that had Covid, recovered, and have antibodies, but not vaccinated (and chose not to get vaccinated) when determining policy recommendations and/or evaluating levels of immunity to get to heard immunity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, red blades said:

At the risk of going even further off the rails - +1 to this.  Fox News and CNN/MSNBC all pushing the extreme agendas, and making the argument the you are either one of us, or one of them.  There is no acceptance for a middle ground.

Absolutely nail on the head.  

I don’t have anything to add, but hot diggity I wish this was out there a lot more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, dman115 said:

Questions for everyone...do you think we...or I should say the CDC....should take into consideration the percentage of people that had Covid, recovered, and have antibodies, but not vaccinated (and chose not to get vaccinated) when determining policy recommendations and/or evaluating levels of immunity to get to heard immunity?

Yes, I think so definitely it should be explored.  Even if it didn’t have a sizable impact, I think it would be an important exercise simply for the effects it would have on eroding dogmatic stances with common ground pragmatism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Drew87 said:

Yes, I think so definitely it should be explored.  Even if it didn’t have a sizable impact, I think it would be an important exercise simply for the effects it would have on eroding dogmatic stances with common ground pragmatism.

Kind of how I feel about it.  And the old cynic in me wants to say that this probably would have just happened if it weren't for the current environment we are in as a nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, dman115 said:

Questions for everyone...do you think we...or I should say the CDC....should take into consideration the percentage of people that had Covid, recovered, and have antibodies, but not vaccinated (and chose not to get vaccinated) when determining policy recommendations and/or evaluating levels of immunity to get to heard immunity?

Depends on time frame but, if forced to answer in a binary way, yes.  We only have data for roughly a year on natural immunity (immunity achieved by prior infection) and roughly six months for full vaccinated immunity, but so far, vaccine immunity reduces the rate of reinfection much more than natural immunity. Still, natural immunity is a hell of a lot better than no immunity. Vaccine immunity (for two-dose vaccines) is more likely to trigger a stronger immune response due to the second shot, which is a booster, so if we’re talking longer time frames, that is the kore important type of immunity to track. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, dman115 said:

Man...how about this...so what is your point you are trying to make??  The semantics on how terms are being used versus what the actual argument is in using the numbers.  I can guarantee I am using the number in the correct context/definition to come up with the OPINION that people that are vaccinated should not have to wear masks...the risk is so freaking low that the benefits of not outweigh the risks...especially when the "science" even says so.  You and Le duke think the CDC isn't saying something that they are absolutely saying...just as Billy and I have tried to explain...instead you try the ole, you are using this term versus this term and that term means this...forget about if it is "infection" versus  "symptomatic infection" versus "asymptomatic infection"...not that the definitions aren't important as they are, but holy crap...you both are trying to say that being vaccinated does not help[ stop the spread (or excuse me...reduce the chance for spread...eye roll) when the very link Le duke posted says the exact opposite of that.

Huh?

You keep a) saying that I said something I didn't and b) saying that the CDC is saying something that they didn't. 

I have not, ever, in this thread said that being vaccinated does not help. So, stop saying that. It's not true.

I said: "COVID vaccines don't stop you from getting infected after you are vaccinated, or from spreading it to others." Which is absolutely true. Per that same CDC link, in the US, the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines show 89% effectiveness against contracting COVID in the general adult population. Believe it or not, words have meaning, and the CDC used them on that website for a specific reason. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dman115 said:

Questions for everyone...do you think we...or I should say the CDC....should take into consideration the percentage of people that had Covid, recovered, and have antibodies, but not vaccinated (and chose not to get vaccinated) when determining policy recommendations and/or evaluating levels of immunity to get to heard immunity?

You think this hasn't occurred to them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, red blades said:

I get the same reaction from so-called progressive friends when I say defunding the police is a bad idea.

To bring this back a little bit on topic - From Gabe Dean's interview, I really do wonder if the family leaving Cornell (and it clearly was a family decision) was due as much to the broader political climate at Cornell as to the specific Covid policies - there are other things going on there recently that may have pushed them away.

Can attest and confirm due to recent work settings, the climate at US educational institutions is headed in a bad way from the standpoint of intellectual intolerance.  

Freedom of thought and exchange of ideas is frowned upon, diversity of opinion is almost entirely disallowed and cause for firing, ostracizing and termination.  More broadly, institutional stances are hard line and increasingly extreme.  The approach is very much toe the line or you are done.  This is across the board in much of education, especially so-called “higher education,” which is a powerful, influential and insular industry.

 

Edited by Drew87

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...