• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Vaccine or negative test requirement for bball games starting next week

Such is the case when their whole argument is the scientists and doctors are lying but the politicians and pundits are telling the truth.
 
They are the same douchebags that claim they'd take a bullet for their country, but won't take a shot for their neighbors.

Their mental gymnastics routine makes them podium contenders at The Intellectual Dishonesty Games. But tRump is the G.O.A.T.
 
You can't even escape these fascists on a sports board. Every walk of life territory. Every medical expert is a liar except my doctor which I don't have. Become Oz cuz you Googled confirmation biased web sewers.
 
Man, it crickets when you ask these rubes to backup their harmful claims with real evidence or data.
"There are so many articles that I could not possibly be bothered to find just one."

articles = my aunt who makes and sells bedazzled cellphone cases from home has posted some totally accurate links on Facebook
 
WakeBored. Are you claiming the authors of the Harvard Gazette (from the public affairs and communication division) are the scientists? Are you basing your comments on the scientific paper or on the Gazette article?
You came out with arrogant guns blazing then ran away when challenged. Seems like you realized you didn't know what you are talking about.

I wouldn't read too much into my delay in responding. I have you on ignore. I click on your posts every now and again to see if it's worth changing that setting, only to have it reconfirmed time and time again.

I have to confess, I don't know what point you think you are making here. The Harvard Gazette reported the results of a study, originally published in Cell. This happens a lot--the results of scientific studies are often published by non-scientific journals. Anyway, the Harvard Gazette article contains a "hyperlink" to the Cell article. You know what a "hyperlink" is, yes? If you "click" on it with your "mouse," it will take you to Cell's "webpage," where you can read the study yourself. Try it out!

Among other things, the study says this: "Remarkably, we found that all three primary vaccine series resulted in low-to-absent neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron . . . . Together, our results highlight that the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant evades vaccine-induced neutralizing immunity under current vaccine regimens . . . . " That's a pretty noteworthy conclusion, and that's part of what the Harvard Gazette article focused on in its article reporting on the study.

I posted in this thread to begin with because someone claimed that "vaccinated" people were getting Omicron at a lower rate than unvaccinated. The study suggests that is wrong, that the current vaccination regime alone doesn't offer protection against Omicron infection, and that only vaccinated and boosted people are getting Omicron at a lower rate. My point is simply that if we are going to "listen to the science," then we need to make sure we have the science right before we start considering policy implications that follow.

If, in fact, it is true that vaccination according to our current regimen alone doesn't help against Omicron, and, if, in fact, it is true that Omicron is the vastly dominant variant (I've seen some reports of studies that say it's as high as 95% (https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/588164-cdc-omicron-now-95-percent-of-new-us-covid-19-cases), though I don't know if that's the consensus), then mandating vaccination without also mandating the booster is largely security theater. The same is true for the studies suggesting that cloth masks are "little more than facial decorations" against Omicron. https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/24/health/cloth-mask-omicron-variant-wellness/index.html. If cloth masks are largely ineffective, then mandating "masks" without specifying the type, is largely security theater.

If those studies are correct, not only is Wake requiring vaccination and masking for basketball games pointless, it may actually be counterproductive because the increased number of people who show up thinking they are safe because of the restrictions put in place would just end up resulting in more infections than if no restrictions had been put in place and those additional people had stayed home. Wake is just trying to sell tickets, after all.

In any event, the observation that we should be sure we have the science right before we start listening to it seems like a pretty obvious one, and I can't fathom what would be objectionable about it, at least for people who are interested in discussing the topic in good faith. Regrettably, those people appear to be in short supply.

Best wishes in your future endeavors.
 
Last edited:
And there you have it. I've put the doctor on ignore during a pandemic because what experts say doesn't jive with what I want to believe.
 
I wouldn't read too much into my delay in responding. I have you on ignore. I click on your posts every now and again to see if it's worth changing that setting, only to have it reconfirmed time and time again.

I have to confess, I don't know what point you think you are making here. The Harvard Gazette reported the results of a study, originally published in Cell. This happens a lot--the results of scientific studies are often published by non-scientific journals. Anyway, the Harvard Gazette article contains a "hyperlink" to the Cell article. You know what a "hyperlink" is, yes? If you "click" on it with your "mouse," it will take you to Cell's "webpage," where you can read the study yourself. Try it out!

Among other things, the study says this: "Remarkably, we found that all three primary vaccine series resulted in low-to-absent neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron . . . . Together, our results highlight that the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant evades vaccine-induced neutralizing immunity under current vaccine regimens . . . . " That's a pretty noteworthy conclusion, and that's part of what the Harvard Gazette article focused on in its article reporting on the study.

I posted in this thread to begin with because someone claimed that "vaccinated" people were getting Omicron at a lower rate than unvaccinated. The study suggests that is wrong, that the current vaccination regime alone doesn't offer protection against Omicron infection, and that only vaccinated and boosted people are getting Omicron at a lower rate. My point is simply that if we are going to "listen to the science," then we need to make sure we have the science right before we start considering policy implications that follow.

If, in fact, it is true that vaccination according to our current regimen alone doesn't help against Omicron, and, if, in fact, it is true that Omicron is the vastly dominant variant (I've seen some reports of studies that say it's as high as 95% (https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/588164-cdc-omicron-now-95-percent-of-new-us-covid-19-cases), though I don't know if that's the consensus), then mandating vaccination without also mandating the booster is largely security theater. The same is true for the studies suggesting that cloth masks are "little more than facial decorations" against Omicron. https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/24/health/cloth-mask-omicron-variant-wellness/index.html. If cloth masks are largely ineffective, then mandating "masks" without specifying the type, is largely security theater.

If those studies are correct, not only is Wake requiring vaccination and masking for basketball games pointless, it may actually be counterproductive because the increased number of people who show up thinking they are safe because of the restrictions put in place would just end up resulting in more infections than if no restrictions had been put in place and those additional people had stayed home. Wake is just trying to sell tickets, after all.

In any event, the observation that we should be sure we have the science right before we start listening to it seems like a pretty obvious one, and I can't fathom what would be objectionable about it, at least for people who are interested in discussing the topic in good faith. Regrettably, those people appear to be in short supply.

Best wishes in your future endeavors.
You put the doctor on ignore? You have a losing case. Dismiss it.
 
I don't have much time for a response at the moment and i am not going to waste time responding to someone who has me on ignore.

For those that don't put the physicians and public health experts on ignore, Broke makes some reasonable points in his response, so I give credit for that. However, he doesn't understand how they fit into the overall picture. I noted above that this study was only looking at one facet of our potential immune response, humoral (antibody) immunity. Your immune system is remarkable and has many weapons to fight infection. The last 2 sentences of the study are very important, pasted below. Studies like this are important to help us understand how our immune system works against specific diseases and how we might improve that response. But, studies like this are meant to piece together for the big picture, it is not the big picture itself. These studies are to be combined with what we see in the real world to help us understand what is going on. We can have a study that says that an important portion of humoral doesn't seem responsive after vaccination but then see in the real world that people with vaccination are not being hospitalized at nearly the same rate as unvaccinated (this is what we have). That doesn't mean the study is wrong, it means we need to look for other mechanisms to see where that benefit is coming from. Now, if the antibody-mediated immunity is good, that is a pretty good indicator that it will translate into immunity in the real world. You only have to kill the virus once. The absence of that specific type of immunity doesn't rule out benefit/immunity.

I know many are trying to hear "both sides" and are confused by hearing conflicting points of view. I have spoken to intelligent and (whom I view to be) kind people that just throw up their hands not knowing what to believe. So, the default is do nothing. For those of us in this and trained to address the virus, our steps forward are clear. There are several of us on this board who have expertise and real life experience with this virus. I think we are all happy to help/support if anyone is interested.

The Cell paper Broke alludes to closes with these two statements:

"Furthermore, we did not assess other antibody-mediated functions, such as complement deposition, antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity, or antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis, which may contribute to protection even in the absence of neutralizing antibodies. We did not assess the role of vaccine-elicited cellular immune responses mediated by T cells and NK cells, which are likely to play a key role in disease prevention for vaccine recipients."
 
A question I haven't had clearly answered is whether the "low to absent" efficacy of the "current vaccine schedule" (two shots of mRNA six weeks apart?), which in junebug's description of the study is distinct from vaccine + booster, is due to the efficacy of the vaccine in building antibody response (to fight future infection) or based on current antibody levels in those who have recently you've received a shot. Or both

In other words, are boosted people having better results because they've more recently had a shot and thus have antibodies already? As I understand it the boosters for pfizer and moderna have largely been identical to the first and second shots.

Does this question make sense?

I wonder when being "fully vaccinated" will include having had a recent booster.
 
TR's response is helpful and this below only makes my question more important (to my understanding)

I noted above that this study was only looking at one facet of our potential immune response, humoral (antibody) immunity.

"Furthermore, we did not assess other antibody-mediated functions, such as complement deposition, antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity, or antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis, which may contribute to protection even in the absence of neutralizing antibodies. We did not assess the role of vaccine-elicited cellular immune responses mediated by T cells and NK cells, which are likely to play a key role in disease prevention for vaccine recipients."
 
A question I haven't had clearly answered is whether the "low to absent" efficacy of the "current vaccine schedule" (two shots of mRNA six weeks apart?), which in junebug's description of the study is distinct from vaccine + booster, is due to the efficacy of the vaccine in building antibody response (to fight future infection) or based on current antibody levels in those who have recently you've received a shot. Or both

In other words, are boosted people having better results because they've more recently had a shot and thus have antibodies already? As I understand it the boosters for pfizer and moderna have largely been identical to the first and second shots.

Does this question make sense?

I wonder when being "fully vaccinated" will include having had a recent booster.

Here is a super simplistic response, it’s also why the neutralization and response outside of just magnitude can vary so much from person to person.

The not super complex reason is when the body see’s the covid antigen again it brings the viral material to your lymph nodes, germinal centers form which are essentially B cell factories, as the B cells get made hypersomatic mutation occurs, essentially rearrangement and antibody mutations are made and new antibodies are developed every replication and tested against the hapless viral antigen stuck the the antigen presenting cell, the body keeps selecting the better and best antibodies, if the new antibody sucks the cells dies if it’s better than before it’s the new template and on and on it goes. You can target the same antigen (same vaccine formula) but your breadth of coverage of that antigen increases, what is made is better and can target new epitopes. (It’s a hell of a lot more complicated but that’s probably I hope easy enough to understand)
 
Brilliant. Wake should do the same. Don't give people an excuse to not wear a mask because they are holding a drink.

Disney initially had an exception for eating and drinking until people just walked around with a drink in hand and no mask all day.

Those kinds of people ruin it for everyone.
 
Just saw where K is missing tonight's game due to illness. Not Covid.
 
Just saw where K is missing tonight's game due to illness. Not Covid.

not yet announced as Covid. if they announced he had it, games in jeopardy. maybe he has the Aaron Rogers version with that natural immunity shit.
 
not yet announced as Covid. if they announced he had it, games in jeopardy. maybe he has the Aaron Rogers version with that natural immunity shit.

I’m going with the narrative that we found out K isn’t vaxxed, changed our policy, and then wouldn’t let him in the Joel.
 
So the excuse is already out there if we win. No K. Fuck it. Get the W and take the excuses into the win column too.
 
Disney initially had an exception for eating and drinking until people just walked around with a drink in hand and no mask all day.

Those kinds of people ruin it for everyone.

Like the people who used to fake a handicap to skip the lines. Truly despicable, selfish people.
 
So the excuse is already out there if we win. No K. Fuck it. Get the W and take the excuses into the win column too.

I'm fine with that. "See what happens when Scheyerface is in charge!?! Don't go to Duke after K."
 
Back
Top