Jump to content
The Take Out

When does Northwestern fire Howe and Kennedy?

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Eagle26 said:


I suppose you can dispute anything, but the vast majority of evidence is suggesting that natural immunity offers better protection. As you point out the vaccine is only months old so there is very little concrete evidence about it. In the short time that the vaccine has been available, we learned that it’s effectiveness wears off much quicker than anticipated. What do we know about any potential long term side effects? Nothing. I’m not an anti vaxer by any means. I think it’s a great tool that helped a lot of at risk people. But it is waaaaay too early to mandate it for everyone.


If I need to know anything about wrestling or sports, I ask@ShakaAloha because he knows more than me.

The vast majority of evidence suggests that "natural-immunity plus vaccine" offers better protection than natural-immunity alone.

The 'Israeli natural-immunity offers better protection' study many reference has been seized and repeated by various politicians as if it is the gold standard in medical studies ... which it is not. It has not been peer reviewed, and it is contradicted by multiple other studies. The politicians put it in the headlines - particularly the politicians who found it "fit" their personal agendas. Not to mention that seeking out natural immunity is a terrible idea (per the 1 in 500 in the US who have died in that process.) I don't know about you, but I trust the CDC far more than I trust politicians - but that's just me.

Share this post


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

The vast majority of evidence suggests that "natural-immunity plus vaccine" offers better protection than natural-immunity alone.

The 'Israeli natural-immunity offers better protection' study many reference has been seized and repeated by various politicians as if it is the gold standard in medical studies ... which it is not. It has not been peer reviewed, and it is contradicted by multiple other studies. The politicians put it in the headlines - particularly the politicians who found it "fit" their personal agendas. Not to mention that seeking out natural immunity is a terrible idea (per the 1 in 500 in the US who have died in that process.) I don't know about you, but I trust the CDC far more than I trust politicians - but that's just me.

Is the Director of the CDC a political appointment? Hence a bureaucrat?

Edited by AHamilton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AHamilton said:

Is the Director of the CDC a political appointment?

The CDC is staffed with medical experts who are dedicated to serving the people. They are in agreement with the 95+% of doctors who are vaccinated.

Don't even try to throw more conspiracy theory garbage at this. You're just acting like another troll now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Le duke said:


I was referring to the fact that ~30% of people who caught smallpox, produced antibodies and still died.

300,000,000 people in the 20th century alone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They did not have natural immunity.  Their antibodies didn't work the first time.  Nice attempt though.  

You're hilarious.

Share this post


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

The CDC is staffed with medical experts who are dedicated to serving the people. They are in agreement with the 95+% of doctors who are vaccinated.

Don't even try to throw more conspiracy theory garbage at this. You're just acting like another troll now.

Is the head of the CDC a political appointment?  Yes or no? I'm not talking conspiracy theories.  Yes or no?

https://www.massgeneral.org/news/rochelle-walensky

Edited by AHamilton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AHamilton said:

Is the head of the CDC a political appointment?  Yes or no?

I'm attempting to participate in a useful discussion among those that sincerely want to discuss the topic and find the sharing of perspectives useful.

Why are you posting like a troll who's only here to bicker and stir up trouble?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, GreatWhiteNorth said:

I'm attempting to participate in a useful discussion among those that sincerely want to discuss the topic and find the sharing of perspectives useful.

Why are you posting like a troll who's only here to bicker and stir up trouble?

Political appointment or not?

https://www.massgeneral.org/news/rochelle-walensky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

I'm attempting to participate in a useful discussion among those that sincerely want to discuss the topic and find the sharing of perspectives useful.

Why are you posting like a troll who's only here to bicker and stir up trouble?

How am I a conspiracy theorist?  I am a student of government, I know how it works.  

I think there's been plenty of bickering and stirring of trouble.

I am a covid survivor.  I am vaxxed, I wish everyone would get it.  But I am troubled by some of the thinking out there regarding vaccines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the price of tea in China?

Trolls like to stir up message boards and crave the attention they'll get. It's fun for them.

The problem with trolling serious topics like covid is that people read the troll posts and some start to believe what they read. It's not very funny then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AHamilton said:

How am I a conspiracy theorist?  I am a student of government, I know how it works.  

I think there's been plenty of bickering and stirring of trouble.

I am a covid survivor.  I am vaxxed, I wish everyone would get it.  But I am troubled by some of the thinking out there regarding vaccines.

Troubled to the point where you imply the CDC isn't a legitimate source of information?

That's not a funny thing to joke about. People read and believe these types of things. If you truly wished everyone would get vaxxed, you wouldn't be going down that road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

The CDC is staffed with medical experts who are dedicated to serving the people. They are in agreement with the 95+% of doctors who are vaccinated.

.

Of course we all hope this is true.  But if it is true then why would the new President need to appoint a new CDC director?

Edited by ionel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They did not have natural immunity.  Their antibodies didn't work the first time.  Nice attempt though.  
You're hilarious.

As it turns out, the natural immunity from the antibodies their bodies produced was, in fact, less than what people get from the smallpox vaccine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Le duke said:


As it turns out, the natural immunity from the antibodies their bodies produced was, in fact, less than what people get from the smallpox vaccine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are absolutely WRONG.  

What percentage of smallpox survivors got the disease a second time?

Gotcha, Butch!

Edited by AHamilton

Share this post


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

Troubled to the point where you imply the CDC isn't a legitimate source of information?

That's not a funny thing to joke about. People read and believe these types of things. If you truly wished everyone would get vaxxed, you wouldn't be going down that road.

Is Dr. Walensky an appointee?

https://www.massgeneral.org/news/rochelle-walensky

Answer the question.

Edited by AHamilton

Share this post


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

Of course we all hope this is true.  But if it is true then why would the new President need to appoint a new CDC director?

There are many potential reasons - I wouldn't want to speculate on any single one. It is certainly not unusual for new administrations to name new appointees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

There are many potential reasons - I wouldn't want to speculate on any single one. It is certainly not unusual for new administrations to name new appointees.

Political appointee? Yes or no?  The silence is deafening...

https://www.massgeneral.org/news/rochelle-walensky

Edited by AHamilton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone actually find useful information from the CDC site?  Its been one of my frustrations that is seems impossible (maybe I'm looking in the wrong places) consistent data or dashboard thats show info per 100k for US, per state, per county etc.

Here's an examp,example, of what I'd call useful (could be better) also found similar for Virginia:

https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/idaho.division.of.public.health/viz/DPHIdahoCOVID-19Dashboard/Home

From dashboard at:

https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/idaho.division.of.public.health/viz/DPHIdahoCOVID-19Dashboard/Home

From their main site at:

https://coronavirus.idaho.gov/

Share this post


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

Why do you feel the need to badger over a question you can easily answer yourself?

When it comes to participating in a useful discussion, you are truly a disappointment.

So: Basically... I am right but you are too stubborn to admit it.  

Once you admit it, maybe we can have a conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

The CDC is staffed with medical experts who are dedicated to serving the people. They are in agreement with the 95+% of doctors who are vaccinated.

Don't even try to throw more conspiracy theory garbage at this. You're just acting like another troll now.

Have you ever called anyone who believed this disease was genetically engineered in a Wuhan lab a conspiracy theorist?

Share this post


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

Can anyone actually find useful information from the CDC site?  Its been one of my frustrations that is seems impossible (maybe I'm looking in the wrong places) consistent data or dashboard thats show info per 100k for US, per state, per county etc.

Here's an examp,example, of what I'd call useful (could be better) also found similar for Virginia:

https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/idaho.division.of.public.health/viz/DPHIdahoCOVID-19Dashboard/Home

From dashboard at:

https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/idaho.division.of.public.health/viz/DPHIdahoCOVID-19Dashboard/Home

From their main site at:

https://coronavirus.idaho.gov/

I don't disagree at all. The CDC's web site is difficult to wade through - and I've had better luck finding what I'm looking for at other reputable sources (including individual states as you've linked.)

I also don't disagree that the CDC's messaging has been poor from the very beginning. Inconsistent, sporadic, and even misguided at times.

As frustrating as these things have been, I personally still believe in doctors and medical experts. (After all, they didn't write the web site or organize the press releases.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...