quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Anderson

quote:

ORIGINAL: ratoppenheimer

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark AndersonT

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom Sykes

anyway, back to our regular programming ...

I agree.

Who gets the 4th and 5th DT spots? Watts, Twyman, Lynch, Hercules

Twyman and Watts.

agreed

Also, I heard Patterson say that Oregon guy(UDFA) has a chance. He was top recruit who lit it up as a Freshman. Then got bad advice to gain weight and he lost all his quickness and went undrafted. Vikings want him back at Freshman weight.

Is OTA star Hand still playing CB? Thought he might move to safety.

Will super smart Bynum make a run at Woods' job?

Yes to the bolded. Since the moment he was drafted I've liked the move and wondered if he might not actually have the inside track.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joejitsu

I hope Darrisaw gets better and plays a lot of reps in the off season. We are starting to look like we have a clue with the o and d lines, and they have to be at full strength for a while to build some chemistry together. Contrary to popular belief, football starts along the lines.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: joejitsu

I hope Darrisaw gets better and plays a lot of reps in the off season. We are starting to look like we have a clue with the o and d lines, and they have to be at full strength for a while to build some chemistry together. Contrary to popular belief, football starts along the lines.

I think the only person who believes it doesn't start with the lines is Brad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Happy Norseman

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Anderson

quote:

ORIGINAL: ratoppenheimer

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark AndersonT

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom Sykes

anyway, back to our regular programming ...

I agree.

Who gets the 4th and 5th DT spots? Watts, Twyman, Lynch, Hercules

Twyman and Watts.

agreed

Also, I heard Patterson say that Oregon guy(UDFA) has a chance. He was top recruit who lit it up as a Freshman. Then got bad advice to gain weight and he lost all his quickness and went undrafted. Vikings want him back at Freshman weight.

Is OTA star Hand still playing CB? Thought he might move to safety.

Will super smart Bynum make a run at Woods' job?

Yes to the bolded. Since the moment he was drafted I've liked the move and wondered if he might not actually have the inside track.

That would be ideal. The Vikings have a lot of rent-a-players on this year's squad playing on 1-year deals. We need some rookies and younger guys, who are actually under contract for a while, to step up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Anderson

quote:

ORIGINAL: ratoppenheimer

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark AndersonT

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom Sykes

anyway, back to our regular programming ...

I agree.

Who gets the 4th and 5th DT spots? Watts, Twyman, Lynch, Hercules

Twyman and Watts.

agreed

Also, I heard Patterson say that Oregon guy(UDFA) has a chance. He was top recruit who lit it up as a Freshman. Then got bad advice to gain weight and he lost all his quickness and went undrafted. Vikings want him back at Freshman weight.

Is OTA star Hand still playing CB? Thought he might move to safety.

Will super smart Bynum make a run at Woods' job?

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: joejitsu

I hope Darrisaw gets better and plays a lot of reps in the off season. We are starting to look like we have a clue with the o and d lines, and they have to be at full strength for a while to build some chemistry together. Contrary to popular belief, football starts along the lines.

I think the only person who believes it doesn't start with the lines is Brad.

And Rick Spielman.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Anderson

quote:

ORIGINAL: ratoppenheimer

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark AndersonT

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom Sykes

anyway, back to our regular programming ...

I agree.

Who gets the 4th and 5th DT spots? Watts, Twyman, Lynch, Hercules

Twyman and Watts.

agreed

Also, I heard Patterson say that Oregon guy(UDFA) has a chance. He was top recruit who lit it up as a Freshman. Then got bad advice to gain weight and he lost all his quickness and went undrafted. Vikings want him back at Freshman weight.

Is OTA star Hand still playing CB? Thought he might move to safety.

Will super smart Bynum make a run at Woods' job?

I doubt it. Everybody seems to be loving Woods. Particularly Zimmer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dana Turner
...
Yea, perhaps he's looking at the amount of people who have had adverse reactions. I lost a very close friend who died just hours after taking his second shot. I know that millions of shots have been given, but over 5,000 people have died after getting the shot, so perhaps he wants to do the best research he can before he makes this decision. I know it's not vogue to think for yourself any more, but the way the medical community has vacillated on this issue, people have a right to be cautious and not just blindly follow the crowd. If a person has received the shot, why the f@!# do they care what someone else does?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer
... Getting the vaccine either way is someone's right. Especially since it isn't FDA approved. I took the vaccine--doesn't mean I have the right to condemn someone that hasn't. Thinking that is what Tom meant with the joke......

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Jandro

No one knows the long term effects of this vaccine. Those vaccinated could all get wiped out but I don't see anyone hoping that happens.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Anderson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Anderson

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Anderson

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Anderson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Todd M

All the time and money spent on charges, guns, and bombs, if we invested that into science and humanity, life would be amazing.

Plenty of money being spent.

But, the decision makers make more $$$ treating diseases than curing them.

Which decision makers? They're allowing COVID to flourish for $$$?

Not talking about Covid.

If someone like you was the King of Pharma(not an actual job), Cures would be on the uptick for some cancers and other diseases.

But, I believe that lining certain peoples pockets with ungodly amounts of money is the number one goal of Big Pharma. You can't make money if you don't have any customers. Cures eliminate customers.

Call me a wacky Conspiracy guy if you want.

But you'd agree that if a pharma company says don't use our drug for COVID, that's a pretty good indication to not use the drug for COVID, right?

When 'said company' has a few billion viles of vaccine in the freezer.

Anyway, there are real doctors out there that vouched for these other treatments. They were almost immediately shut down or banned. Not sure if those treatments ever got a fair shake(extensive trials). Maybe they did and I didn't see it.

The post about that said Merck recommended against its anti-parasitic drug. I don't think Merck has billions of viles of vaccine, were you thinking Moderna?

I think they partnered up with J & J.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DavidAOlson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dana Turner
...
Yea, perhaps he's looking at the amount of people who have had adverse reactions. I lost a very close friend who died just hours after taking his second shot. I know that millions of shots have been given, but over 5,000 people have died after getting the shot, so perhaps he wants to do the best research he can before he makes this decision. I know it's not vogue to think for yourself any more, but the way the medical community has vacillated on this issue, people have a right to be cautious and not just blindly follow the crowd. If a person has received the shot, why the f@!# do they care what someone else does?

I debated responding to this post, because it's going to be raw for Dana. So Dana, sorry for your loss.

I'm sorry that my response is going to be a bit clinical, but I wasn't satisfied with the responses to Dana's post.

No, you shouldn't do your own research on deaths to make up your own mind about whether the vaccines are relatively safe. And neither should I. We should rely on the highly-skilled multi-disciplinary teams who are gathering and analyzing all the data, and the highly-skilled teams that are reviewing whether those teams are functioning well. With several hundred million people getting shots, and a special emphasis on older people, we have to expect that people will die after they get the shot. The question is whether the shot had anything to do with it. That's one reason why you have to wait around for 15 minutes after you get the shot, or longer if you've had allergic reactions to previous shots. And people running trials and tracking data pay extra attention to deaths, obviously. But my ability to research whether the vaccine caused the death is hopelessly tiny compared to the teams who are working on that data — hopelessly tiny. I am certain I can't research the question to get an answer that's better than those teams, and I'm quite certain that unless you're working on one of those teams, or reviewing them, you should rely on their results. Consider that the J&J vaccine was paused for blood clots, showing up at a rate of a handful per million, until they gathered any possible other cases and put out treatment protocols (because was different from the standard blood clots). They're tracking everything significant.

For this question, doing your own research might be comparable to expecting a young teenager to run an NFL team. Solo. GM to coaching to janitorial services to web design.

Be cautious, sure. But the expert consensus is overwhelming and clear: get vaccinated.

And since I am fully vaccinated, I want to answer the question: why do I care if you get the shot? Because I do care.

1. Because I care about your health, personally. I want more Dana posts. And same for other people generally.
2. Because if anyone become a long-timer, that costs society a lot, directly in care and in lost contributions.
3. Because unvaccinated people are more likely to have the disease, and a lot more likely to spread the disease to other people.
4. Because vaccination is not perfectly protective, and we all remain somewhat at risk.
5. Because I was this disease gone, gone, gone. Or rare, rare, rare. And that requires a lot more people to be vaccinated.
6. Because the Delta strain is more contagious, and more deadly, and is now spreading in the US.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Anderson

quote:

ORIGINAL: ratoppenheimer

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark AndersonT

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom Sykes

anyway, back to our regular programming ...

I agree.

Who gets the 4th and 5th DT spots? Watts, Twyman, Lynch, Hercules

Twyman and Watts.

agreed

Also, I heard Patterson say that Oregon guy(UDFA) has a chance. He was top recruit who lit it up as a Freshman. Then got bad advice to gain weight and he lost all his quickness and went undrafted. Vikings want him back at Freshman weight.

Is OTA star Hand still playing CB? Thought he might move to safety.

Will super smart Bynum make a run at Woods' job?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DavidAOlson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Jandro

No one knows the long term effects of this vaccine. Those vaccinated could all get wiped out but I don't see anyone hoping that happens.

I've read nuts and whackos who assert that the vaccine is a secret plan to wipe out all the "liberals," but I want to respond to the long term effects issue.

First, distinguish between the various vaccines. Pfizer and Moderna are similar mRNA vaccines, but dosage differences mean they may have somewhat different risk profiles. J&J is quite different from those two, as is the Astra Zeneca vaccine — maybe those two vaccines are second cousins. And Novavax is a third type (likely to get an EUA soon).

I'm not sure what you mean by long term effects, but generally vaccine effects show up within 2 months. We've got lots of data past in time window, and beyond.

Beyond 2 months, the J&J vaccine is using established technology, and so is the Novavax. So if "long term effects" refers to something beyond that timeframe, those two vaccine types have multi-year data, and no significant concerns. So if long term concerns about the technology are stopping anyone, get the J&J vaccine now. Or Novavax when it is approved.

For the mRNA vaccines, probably the most novel technology, they have been under study for a decade+, with long term data from phase 1 & 2 trials for other viruses. That data isn't nearly as extensive as the others, or course, but nothing significant has shown up in the long term data from those trials. So although some skepticism is justified, any long term effect from the technology is likely to be rare or small, or it would have shown up already. But those vaccines are also markedly more effective.

Realize that the alternative is for the virus to inject its complete mRNA into your cells, and that mRNA is designed to create many more virus particles, and for 1-5% the long term effects of the disease are substantial because of how it rips up your arteries. At this point, that's clearly a much, much greater risk than any plausible remaining effect of the vaccine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: DavidAOlson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dana Turner
...
Yea, perhaps he's looking at the amount of people who have had adverse reactions. I lost a very close friend who died just hours after taking his second shot. I know that millions of shots have been given, but over 5,000 people have died after getting the shot, so perhaps he wants to do the best research he can before he makes this decision. I know it's not vogue to think for yourself any more, but the way the medical community has vacillated on this issue, people have a right to be cautious and not just blindly follow the crowd. If a person has received the shot, why the f@!# do they care what someone else does?

I debated responding to this post, because it's going to be raw for Dana. So Dana, sorry for your loss.

I'm sorry that my response is going to be a bit clinical, but I wasn't satisfied with the responses to Dana's post.

No, you shouldn't do your own research on deaths to make up your own mind about whether the vaccines are relatively safe. And neither should I. We should rely on the highly-skilled multi-disciplinary teams who are gathering and analyzing all the data, and the highly-skilled teams that are reviewing whether those teams are functioning well. With several hundred million people getting shots, and a special emphasis on older people, we have to expect that people will die after they get the shot. The question is whether the shot had anything to do with it. That's one reason why you have to wait around for 15 minutes after you get the shot, or longer if you've had allergic reactions to previous shots. And people running trials and tracking data pay extra attention to deaths, obviously. But my ability to research whether the vaccine caused the death is hopelessly tiny compared to the teams who are working on that data — hopelessly tiny. I am certain I can't research the question to get an answer that's better than those teams, and I'm quite certain that unless you're working on one of those teams, or reviewing them, you should rely on their results. Consider that the J&J vaccine was paused for blood clots, showing up at a rate of a handful per million, until they gathered any possible other cases and put out treatment protocols (because was different from the standard blood clots). They're tracking everything significant.

For this question, doing your own research might be comparable to expecting a young teenager to run an NFL team. Solo. GM to coaching to janitorial services to web design.

Be cautious, sure. But the expert consensus is overwhelming and clear: get vaccinated.

And since I am fully vaccinated, I want to answer the question: why do I care if you get the shot? Because I do care.

1. Because I care about your health, personally. I want more Dana posts. And same for other people generally.
2. Because if anyone become a long-timer, that costs society a lot, directly in care and in lost contributions.
3. Because unvaccinated people are more likely to have the disease, and a lot more likely to spread the disease to other people.
4. Because vaccination is not perfectly protective, and we all remain somewhat at risk.
5. Because I was this disease gone, gone, gone. Or rare, rare, rare. And that requires a lot more people to be vaccinated.
6. Because the Delta strain is more contagious, and more deadly, and is now spreading in the US.

David good post. However, when people like Dana or myself say we are going to do research we don't mean we are going to start from scratch figure it all out with our own studies. We are going to search the internet to find the studies that produced the results you are talking about. We are going to ask others that have looked into it more than ourselves like you have. My reading this post right now is me doing research. You had to research this to know about those yourself. So you did research and came up with your conclusion. Just like I did and just like Dana is doing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: DavidAOlson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Jandro

No one knows the long term effects of this vaccine. Those vaccinated could all get wiped out but I don't see anyone hoping that happens.

I've read nuts and whackos who assert that the vaccine is a secret plan to wipe out all the "liberals," but I want to respond to the long term effects issue.

First, distinguish between the various vaccines. Pfizer and Moderna are similar mRNA vaccines, but dosage differences mean they may have somewhat different risk profiles. J&J is quite different from those two, as is the Astra Zeneca vaccine — maybe those two vaccines are second cousins. And Novavax is a third type (likely to get an EUA soon).

I'm not sure what you mean by long term effects, but generally vaccine effects show up within 2 months. We've got lots of data past in time window, and beyond.

Beyond 2 months, the J&J vaccine is using established technology, and so is the Novavax. So if "long term effects" refers to something beyond that timeframe, those two vaccine types have multi-year data, and no significant concerns. So if long term concerns about the technology are stopping anyone, get the J&J vaccine now. Or Novavax when it is approved.

For the mRNA vaccines, probably the most novel technology, they have been under study for a decade+, with long term data from phase 1 & 2 trials for other viruses. That data isn't nearly as extensive as the others, or course, but nothing significant has shown up in the long term data from those trials. So although some skepticism is justified, any long term effect from the technology is likely to be rare or small, or it would have shown up already. But those vaccines are also markedly more effective.

Realize that the alternative is for the virus to inject its complete mRNA into your cells, and that mRNA is designed to create many more virus particles, and for 1-5% the long term effects of the disease are substantial because of how it rips up your arteries. At this point, that's clearly a much, much greater risk than any plausible remaining effect of the vaccine.

There's also a significant cohort of people who will sustain serious long-term respiratory impacts. Long-haulers who were never severe or hospitalized may take over a year to recover their previous level of pulmonary function, and for all we know at this point they may never fully recover. More severe cases may mean longer timelines. Those who were severe to the point where they endured acute respiratory distress syndrome, and their lungs will stay stiff and compromised for 6-12 months, if not permanently. We had a 50-year-old guy who came to us still on a vent several months after his infection was gone. His lungs could not inflate enough to give him the amount of air volume he needed with each breath, so he was breathing 35-45 times per minute. He had suffered a pulmonary embolism and cardiac arrest, and all of this happened in spite of the fact that he had no known issues prior to getting COVID. He left us to go back to an acute care hospital and he's currently in misery at another sub-acute facility in our system.

Even if you don't care about him, understand the hundreds of thousands of dollars per year he alone will cost us (in addition to the millions due to his acute illness), because of course he lost his job while sick and therefor has no health insurance.

There is a cost to this at so many levels before you even get to the fact that he's a good guy who was just living a responsible life, and now he is fukked, probably for good, physically, financially, emotionally, etc. Someone like him is walking around right now saying they don't want to get vaccinated based on faulty science and/or disjointed reasoning, stubbornness, fear, politics, religion, what have you. They will get a variant that is specifically infecting them because it is more pernicious and more virulent---that's how it's surviving. The only way variation occurs is to find susceptible hosts in those who don't want to get vaccinated (BTW, nobody "wants" to; they do it because it's what is indicated). Eventually the mutations could allow the virus in one of its variations to impact more people who have already been vaccinated.

So yes, it matters to everyone that as many people as possible get vaccinated.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: DavidAOlson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dana Turner
...
Yea, perhaps he's looking at the amount of people who have had adverse reactions. I lost a very close friend who died just hours after taking his second shot. I know that millions of shots have been given, but over 5,000 people have died after getting the shot, so perhaps he wants to do the best research he can before he makes this decision. I know it's not vogue to think for yourself any more, but the way the medical community has vacillated on this issue, people have a right to be cautious and not just blindly follow the crowd. If a person has received the shot, why the f@!# do they care what someone else does?

I debated responding to this post, because it's going to be raw for Dana. So Dana, sorry for your loss.

I'm sorry that my response is going to be a bit clinical, but I wasn't satisfied with the responses to Dana's post.

No, you shouldn't do your own research on deaths to make up your own mind about whether the vaccines are relatively safe. And neither should I. We should rely on the highly-skilled multi-disciplinary teams who are gathering and analyzing all the data, and the highly-skilled teams that are reviewing whether those teams are functioning well. With several hundred million people getting shots, and a special emphasis on older people, we have to expect that people will die after they get the shot. The question is whether the shot had anything to do with it. That's one reason why you have to wait around for 15 minutes after you get the shot, or longer if you've had allergic reactions to previous shots. And people running trials and tracking data pay extra attention to deaths, obviously. But my ability to research whether the vaccine caused the death is hopelessly tiny compared to the teams who are working on that data — hopelessly tiny. I am certain I can't research the question to get an answer that's better than those teams, and I'm quite certain that unless you're working on one of those teams, or reviewing them, you should rely on their results. Consider that the J&J vaccine was paused for blood clots, showing up at a rate of a handful per million, until they gathered any possible other cases and put out treatment protocols (because was different from the standard blood clots). They're tracking everything significant.

For this question, doing your own research might be comparable to expecting a young teenager to run an NFL team. Solo. GM to coaching to janitorial services to web design.

Be cautious, sure. But the expert consensus is overwhelming and clear: get vaccinated.

And since I am fully vaccinated, I want to answer the question: why do I care if you get the shot? Because I do care.

1. Because I care about your health, personally. I want more Dana posts. And same for other people generally.
2. Because if anyone become a long-timer, that costs society a lot, directly in care and in lost contributions.
3. Because unvaccinated people are more likely to have the disease, and a lot more likely to spread the disease to other people.
4. Because vaccination is not perfectly protective, and we all remain somewhat at risk.
5. Because I was this disease gone, gone, gone. Or rare, rare, rare. And that requires a lot more people to be vaccinated.
6. Because the Delta strain is more contagious, and more deadly, and is now spreading in the US.

David good post. However, when people like Dana or myself say we are going to do research we don't mean we are going to start from scratch figure it all out with our own studies. We are going to search the internet to find the studies that produced the results you are talking about. We are going to ask others that have looked into it more than ourselves like you have. My reading this post right now is me doing research. You had to research this to know about those yourself. So you did research and came up with your conclusion. Just like I did and just like Dana is doing.

Let's be honest, please. Most people who "do their research" start their statements with things like "Tucker Carlson said..." or "(insert anti-vax website) says...." or "Well my thing is...." This is neither research nor good thinking. Our society is plagued by bad thinking, I'm afraid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: DavidAOlson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dana Turner
...
Yea, perhaps he's looking at the amount of people who have had adverse reactions. I lost a very close friend who died just hours after taking his second shot. I know that millions of shots have been given, but over 5,000 people have died after getting the shot, so perhaps he wants to do the best research he can before he makes this decision. I know it's not vogue to think for yourself any more, but the way the medical community has vacillated on this issue, people have a right to be cautious and not just blindly follow the crowd. If a person has received the shot, why the f@!# do they care what someone else does?

I debated responding to this post, because it's going to be raw for Dana. So Dana, sorry for your loss.

I'm sorry that my response is going to be a bit clinical, but I wasn't satisfied with the responses to Dana's post.

No, you shouldn't do your own research on deaths to make up your own mind about whether the vaccines are relatively safe. And neither should I. We should rely on the highly-skilled multi-disciplinary teams who are gathering and analyzing all the data, and the highly-skilled teams that are reviewing whether those teams are functioning well. With several hundred million people getting shots, and a special emphasis on older people, we have to expect that people will die after they get the shot. The question is whether the shot had anything to do with it. That's one reason why you have to wait around for 15 minutes after you get the shot, or longer if you've had allergic reactions to previous shots. And people running trials and tracking data pay extra attention to deaths, obviously. But my ability to research whether the vaccine caused the death is hopelessly tiny compared to the teams who are working on that data — hopelessly tiny. I am certain I can't research the question to get an answer that's better than those teams, and I'm quite certain that unless you're working on one of those teams, or reviewing them, you should rely on their results. Consider that the J&J vaccine was paused for blood clots, showing up at a rate of a handful per million, until they gathered any possible other cases and put out treatment protocols (because was different from the standard blood clots). They're tracking everything significant.

For this question, doing your own research might be comparable to expecting a young teenager to run an NFL team. Solo. GM to coaching to janitorial services to web design.

Be cautious, sure. But the expert consensus is overwhelming and clear: get vaccinated.

And since I am fully vaccinated, I want to answer the question: why do I care if you get the shot? Because I do care.

1. Because I care about your health, personally. I want more Dana posts. And same for other people generally.
2. Because if anyone become a long-timer, that costs society a lot, directly in care and in lost contributions.
3. Because unvaccinated people are more likely to have the disease, and a lot more likely to spread the disease to other people.
4. Because vaccination is not perfectly protective, and we all remain somewhat at risk.
5. Because I was this disease gone, gone, gone. Or rare, rare, rare. And that requires a lot more people to be vaccinated.
6. Because the Delta strain is more contagious, and more deadly, and is now spreading in the US.

David good post. However, when people like Dana or myself say we are going to do research we don't mean we are going to start from scratch figure it all out with our own studies. We are going to search the internet to find the studies that produced the results you are talking about. We are going to ask others that have looked into it more than ourselves like you have. My reading this post right now is me doing research. You had to research this to know about those yourself. So you did research and came up with your conclusion. Just like I did and just like Dana is doing.

Let's be honest, please. Most people who "do their research" start their statements with things like "Tucker Carlson said..." or "(insert anti-vax website) says...." or "Well my thing is...." This is neither research nor good thinking. Our society is plagued by bad thinking, I'm afraid.

Everybody does some level of research. My reading your last post was research. I've never even heard of Tucker Carlson before reading this post. Somebody listening to their buddy say vaccinations are of the Devil is research. I don't think anybody just flips a coin to decide to get vaccinated or not. I have not researched extensively, but the research I did made me feel very comfortable with getting vaccinated and anybody who comes to me for advice I will recommend they do the same.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: DavidAOlson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dana Turner
...
Yea, perhaps he's looking at the amount of people who have had adverse reactions. I lost a very close friend who died just hours after taking his second shot. I know that millions of shots have been given, but over 5,000 people have died after getting the shot, so perhaps he wants to do the best research he can before he makes this decision. I know it's not vogue to think for yourself any more, but the way the medical community has vacillated on this issue, people have a right to be cautious and not just blindly follow the crowd. If a person has received the shot, why the f@!# do they care what someone else does?

I debated responding to this post, because it's going to be raw for Dana. So Dana, sorry for your loss.

I'm sorry that my response is going to be a bit clinical, but I wasn't satisfied with the responses to Dana's post.

No, you shouldn't do your own research on deaths to make up your own mind about whether the vaccines are relatively safe. And neither should I. We should rely on the highly-skilled multi-disciplinary teams who are gathering and analyzing all the data, and the highly-skilled teams that are reviewing whether those teams are functioning well. With several hundred million people getting shots, and a special emphasis on older people, we have to expect that people will die after they get the shot. The question is whether the shot had anything to do with it. That's one reason why you have to wait around for 15 minutes after you get the shot, or longer if you've had allergic reactions to previous shots. And people running trials and tracking data pay extra attention to deaths, obviously. But my ability to research whether the vaccine caused the death is hopelessly tiny compared to the teams who are working on that data — hopelessly tiny. I am certain I can't research the question to get an answer that's better than those teams, and I'm quite certain that unless you're working on one of those teams, or reviewing them, you should rely on their results. Consider that the J&J vaccine was paused for blood clots, showing up at a rate of a handful per million, until they gathered any possible other cases and put out treatment protocols (because was different from the standard blood clots). They're tracking everything significant.

For this question, doing your own research might be comparable to expecting a young teenager to run an NFL team. Solo. GM to coaching to janitorial services to web design.

Be cautious, sure. But the expert consensus is overwhelming and clear: get vaccinated.

And since I am fully vaccinated, I want to answer the question: why do I care if you get the shot? Because I do care.

1. Because I care about your health, personally. I want more Dana posts. And same for other people generally.
2. Because if anyone become a long-timer, that costs society a lot, directly in care and in lost contributions.
3. Because unvaccinated people are more likely to have the disease, and a lot more likely to spread the disease to other people.
4. Because vaccination is not perfectly protective, and we all remain somewhat at risk.
5. Because I was this disease gone, gone, gone. Or rare, rare, rare. And that requires a lot more people to be vaccinated.
6. Because the Delta strain is more contagious, and more deadly, and is now spreading in the US.

David good post. However, when people like Dana or myself say we are going to do research we don't mean we are going to start from scratch figure it all out with our own studies. We are going to search the internet to find the studies that produced the results you are talking about. We are going to ask others that have looked into it more than ourselves like you have. My reading this post right now is me doing research. You had to research this to know about those yourself. So you did research and came up with your conclusion. Just like I did and just like Dana is doing.

Let's be honest, please. Most people who "do their research" start their statements with things like "Tucker Carlson said..." or "(insert anti-vax website) says...." or "Well my thing is...." This is neither research nor good thinking. Our society is plagued by bad thinking, I'm afraid.

Everybody does some level of research. My reading your last post was research. I've never even heard of Tucker Carlson before reading this post. Somebody listening to their buddy say vaccinations are of the Devil is research. I don't think anybody just flips a coin to decide to get vaccinated or not. I have not researched extensively, but the research I did made me feel very comfortable with getting vaccinated and anybody who comes to me for advice I will recommend they do the same.

Your honor, I rest my case.<<high-fives court reporter and bailiff>>

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: DavidAOlson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dana Turner
...
Yea, perhaps he's looking at the amount of people who have had adverse reactions. I lost a very close friend who died just hours after taking his second shot. I know that millions of shots have been given, but over 5,000 people have died after getting the shot, so perhaps he wants to do the best research he can before he makes this decision. I know it's not vogue to think for yourself any more, but the way the medical community has vacillated on this issue, people have a right to be cautious and not just blindly follow the crowd. If a person has received the shot, why the f@!# do they care what someone else does?

I debated responding to this post, because it's going to be raw for Dana. So Dana, sorry for your loss.

I'm sorry that my response is going to be a bit clinical, but I wasn't satisfied with the responses to Dana's post.

No, you shouldn't do your own research on deaths to make up your own mind about whether the vaccines are relatively safe. And neither should I. We should rely on the highly-skilled multi-disciplinary teams who are gathering and analyzing all the data, and the highly-skilled teams that are reviewing whether those teams are functioning well. With several hundred million people getting shots, and a special emphasis on older people, we have to expect that people will die after they get the shot. The question is whether the shot had anything to do with it. That's one reason why you have to wait around for 15 minutes after you get the shot, or longer if you've had allergic reactions to previous shots. And people running trials and tracking data pay extra attention to deaths, obviously. But my ability to research whether the vaccine caused the death is hopelessly tiny compared to the teams who are working on that data — hopelessly tiny. I am certain I can't research the question to get an answer that's better than those teams, and I'm quite certain that unless you're working on one of those teams, or reviewing them, you should rely on their results. Consider that the J&J vaccine was paused for blood clots, showing up at a rate of a handful per million, until they gathered any possible other cases and put out treatment protocols (because was different from the standard blood clots). They're tracking everything significant.

For this question, doing your own research might be comparable to expecting a young teenager to run an NFL team. Solo. GM to coaching to janitorial services to web design.

Be cautious, sure. But the expert consensus is overwhelming and clear: get vaccinated.

And since I am fully vaccinated, I want to answer the question: why do I care if you get the shot? Because I do care.

1. Because I care about your health, personally. I want more Dana posts. And same for other people generally.
2. Because if anyone become a long-timer, that costs society a lot, directly in care and in lost contributions.
3. Because unvaccinated people are more likely to have the disease, and a lot more likely to spread the disease to other people.
4. Because vaccination is not perfectly protective, and we all remain somewhat at risk.
5. Because I was this disease gone, gone, gone. Or rare, rare, rare. And that requires a lot more people to be vaccinated.
6. Because the Delta strain is more contagious, and more deadly, and is now spreading in the US.

David good post. However, when people like Dana or myself say we are going to do research we don't mean we are going to start from scratch figure it all out with our own studies. We are going to search the internet to find the studies that produced the results you are talking about. We are going to ask others that have looked into it more than ourselves like you have. My reading this post right now is me doing research. You had to research this to know about those yourself. So you did research and came up with your conclusion. Just like I did and just like Dana is doing.

Let's be honest, please. Most people who "do their research" start their statements with things like "Tucker Carlson said..." or "(insert anti-vax website) says...." or "Well my thing is...." This is neither research nor good thinking. Our society is plagued by bad thinking, I'm afraid.

Everybody does some level of research. My reading your last post was research. I've never even heard of Tucker Carlson before reading this post. Somebody listening to their buddy say vaccinations are of the Devil is research. I don't think anybody just flips a coin to decide to get vaccinated or not. I have not researched extensively, but the research I did made me feel very comfortable with getting vaccinated and anybody who comes to me for advice I will recommend they do the same.

Your honor, I rest my case.<<high-fives court reporter and bailiff>>

Why do you choose to go with being a complete jerk when I'm supporting what you have to say. Why. I don't get hateful people like you. I'm livid with rage over this post.

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: DavidAOlson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dana Turner
...
Yea, perhaps he's looking at the amount of people who have had adverse reactions. I lost a very close friend who died just hours after taking his second shot. I know that millions of shots have been given, but over 5,000 people have died after getting the shot, so perhaps he wants to do the best research he can before he makes this decision. I know it's not vogue to think for yourself any more, but the way the medical community has vacillated on this issue, people have a right to be cautious and not just blindly follow the crowd. If a person has received the shot, why the f@!# do they care what someone else does?

I debated responding to this post, because it's going to be raw for Dana. So Dana, sorry for your loss.

I'm sorry that my response is going to be a bit clinical, but I wasn't satisfied with the responses to Dana's post.

No, you shouldn't do your own research on deaths to make up your own mind about whether the vaccines are relatively safe. And neither should I. We should rely on the highly-skilled multi-disciplinary teams who are gathering and analyzing all the data, and the highly-skilled teams that are reviewing whether those teams are functioning well. With several hundred million people getting shots, and a special emphasis on older people, we have to expect that people will die after they get the shot. The question is whether the shot had anything to do with it. That's one reason why you have to wait around for 15 minutes after you get the shot, or longer if you've had allergic reactions to previous shots. And people running trials and tracking data pay extra attention to deaths, obviously. But my ability to research whether the vaccine caused the death is hopelessly tiny compared to the teams who are working on that data — hopelessly tiny. I am certain I can't research the question to get an answer that's better than those teams, and I'm quite certain that unless you're working on one of those teams, or reviewing them, you should rely on their results. Consider that the J&J vaccine was paused for blood clots, showing up at a rate of a handful per million, until they gathered any possible other cases and put out treatment protocols (because was different from the standard blood clots). They're tracking everything significant.

For this question, doing your own research might be comparable to expecting a young teenager to run an NFL team. Solo. GM to coaching to janitorial services to web design.

Be cautious, sure. But the expert consensus is overwhelming and clear: get vaccinated.

And since I am fully vaccinated, I want to answer the question: why do I care if you get the shot? Because I do care.

1. Because I care about your health, personally. I want more Dana posts. And same for other people generally.
2. Because if anyone become a long-timer, that costs society a lot, directly in care and in lost contributions.
3. Because unvaccinated people are more likely to have the disease, and a lot more likely to spread the disease to other people.
4. Because vaccination is not perfectly protective, and we all remain somewhat at risk.
5. Because I was this disease gone, gone, gone. Or rare, rare, rare. And that requires a lot more people to be vaccinated.
6. Because the Delta strain is more contagious, and more deadly, and is now spreading in the US.

David good post. However, when people like Dana or myself say we are going to do research we don't mean we are going to start from scratch figure it all out with our own studies. We are going to search the internet to find the studies that produced the results you are talking about. We are going to ask others that have looked into it more than ourselves like you have. My reading this post right now is me doing research. You had to research this to know about those yourself. So you did research and came up with your conclusion. Just like I did and just like Dana is doing.

Let's be honest, please. Most people who "do their research" start their statements with things like "Tucker Carlson said..." or "(insert anti-vax website) says...." or "Well my thing is...." This is neither research nor good thinking. Our society is plagued by bad thinking, I'm afraid.

Everybody does some level of research. My reading your last post was research. I've never even heard of Tucker Carlson before reading this post. Somebody listening to their buddy say vaccinations are of the Devil is research. I don't think anybody just flips a coin to decide to get vaccinated or not. I have not researched extensively, but the research I did made me feel very comfortable with getting vaccinated and anybody who comes to me for advice I will recommend they do the same.

Your honor, I rest my case.<<high-fives court reporter and bailiff>>

Why do you choose to go with being a complete jerk when I'm supporting what you have to say. Why. I don't get hateful people like you. I'm livid with rage over this post.

So, actually you DO get it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: DavidAOlson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dana Turner
...
Yea, perhaps he's looking at the amount of people who have had adverse reactions. I lost a very close friend who died just hours after taking his second shot. I know that millions of shots have been given, but over 5,000 people have died after getting the shot, so perhaps he wants to do the best research he can before he makes this decision. I know it's not vogue to think for yourself any more, but the way the medical community has vacillated on this issue, people have a right to be cautious and not just blindly follow the crowd. If a person has received the shot, why the f@!# do they care what someone else does?

I debated responding to this post, because it's going to be raw for Dana. So Dana, sorry for your loss.

I'm sorry that my response is going to be a bit clinical, but I wasn't satisfied with the responses to Dana's post.

No, you shouldn't do your own research on deaths to make up your own mind about whether the vaccines are relatively safe. And neither should I. We should rely on the highly-skilled multi-disciplinary teams who are gathering and analyzing all the data, and the highly-skilled teams that are reviewing whether those teams are functioning well. With several hundred million people getting shots, and a special emphasis on older people, we have to expect that people will die after they get the shot. The question is whether the shot had anything to do with it. That's one reason why you have to wait around for 15 minutes after you get the shot, or longer if you've had allergic reactions to previous shots. And people running trials and tracking data pay extra attention to deaths, obviously. But my ability to research whether the vaccine caused the death is hopelessly tiny compared to the teams who are working on that data — hopelessly tiny. I am certain I can't research the question to get an answer that's better than those teams, and I'm quite certain that unless you're working on one of those teams, or reviewing them, you should rely on their results. Consider that the J&J vaccine was paused for blood clots, showing up at a rate of a handful per million, until they gathered any possible other cases and put out treatment protocols (because was different from the standard blood clots). They're tracking everything significant.

For this question, doing your own research might be comparable to expecting a young teenager to run an NFL team. Solo. GM to coaching to janitorial services to web design.

Be cautious, sure. But the expert consensus is overwhelming and clear: get vaccinated.

And since I am fully vaccinated, I want to answer the question: why do I care if you get the shot? Because I do care.

1. Because I care about your health, personally. I want more Dana posts. And same for other people generally.
2. Because if anyone become a long-timer, that costs society a lot, directly in care and in lost contributions.
3. Because unvaccinated people are more likely to have the disease, and a lot more likely to spread the disease to other people.
4. Because vaccination is not perfectly protective, and we all remain somewhat at risk.
5. Because I was this disease gone, gone, gone. Or rare, rare, rare. And that requires a lot more people to be vaccinated.
6. Because the Delta strain is more contagious, and more deadly, and is now spreading in the US.

David good post. However, when people like Dana or myself say we are going to do research we don't mean we are going to start from scratch figure it all out with our own studies. We are going to search the internet to find the studies that produced the results you are talking about. We are going to ask others that have looked into it more than ourselves like you have. My reading this post right now is me doing research. You had to research this to know about those yourself. So you did research and came up with your conclusion. Just like I did and just like Dana is doing.

Let's be honest, please. Most people who "do their research" start their statements with things like "Tucker Carlson said..." or "(insert anti-vax website) says...." or "Well my thing is...." This is neither research nor good thinking. Our society is plagued by bad thinking, I'm afraid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Levine

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: DavidAOlson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dana Turner
...
Yea, perhaps he's looking at the amount of people who have had adverse reactions. I lost a very close friend who died just hours after taking his second shot. I know that millions of shots have been given, but over 5,000 people have died after getting the shot, so perhaps he wants to do the best research he can before he makes this decision. I know it's not vogue to think for yourself any more, but the way the medical community has vacillated on this issue, people have a right to be cautious and not just blindly follow the crowd. If a person has received the shot, why the f@!# do they care what someone else does?

I debated responding to this post, because it's going to be raw for Dana. So Dana, sorry for your loss.

I'm sorry that my response is going to be a bit clinical, but I wasn't satisfied with the responses to Dana's post.

No, you shouldn't do your own research on deaths to make up your own mind about whether the vaccines are relatively safe. And neither should I. We should rely on the highly-skilled multi-disciplinary teams who are gathering and analyzing all the data, and the highly-skilled teams that are reviewing whether those teams are functioning well. With several hundred million people getting shots, and a special emphasis on older people, we have to expect that people will die after they get the shot. The question is whether the shot had anything to do with it. That's one reason why you have to wait around for 15 minutes after you get the shot, or longer if you've had allergic reactions to previous shots. And people running trials and tracking data pay extra attention to deaths, obviously. But my ability to research whether the vaccine caused the death is hopelessly tiny compared to the teams who are working on that data — hopelessly tiny. I am certain I can't research the question to get an answer that's better than those teams, and I'm quite certain that unless you're working on one of those teams, or reviewing them, you should rely on their results. Consider that the J&J vaccine was paused for blood clots, showing up at a rate of a handful per million, until they gathered any possible other cases and put out treatment protocols (because was different from the standard blood clots). They're tracking everything significant.

For this question, doing your own research might be comparable to expecting a young teenager to run an NFL team. Solo. GM to coaching to janitorial services to web design.

Be cautious, sure. But the expert consensus is overwhelming and clear: get vaccinated.

And since I am fully vaccinated, I want to answer the question: why do I care if you get the shot? Because I do care.

1. Because I care about your health, personally. I want more Dana posts. And same for other people generally.
2. Because if anyone become a long-timer, that costs society a lot, directly in care and in lost contributions.
3. Because unvaccinated people are more likely to have the disease, and a lot more likely to spread the disease to other people.
4. Because vaccination is not perfectly protective, and we all remain somewhat at risk.
5. Because I was this disease gone, gone, gone. Or rare, rare, rare. And that requires a lot more people to be vaccinated.
6. Because the Delta strain is more contagious, and more deadly, and is now spreading in the US.

David good post. However, when people like Dana or myself say we are going to do research we don't mean we are going to start from scratch figure it all out with our own studies. We are going to search the internet to find the studies that produced the results you are talking about. We are going to ask others that have looked into it more than ourselves like you have. My reading this post right now is me doing research. You had to research this to know about those yourself. So you did research and came up with your conclusion. Just like I did and just like Dana is doing.

Let's be honest, please. Most people who "do their research" start their statements with things like "Tucker Carlson said..." or "(insert anti-vax website) says...." or "Well my thing is...." This is neither research nor good thinking. Our society is plagued by bad thinking, I'm afraid.

Right.

"Doing my own research" is often code for "trying to find something that supports my views".

DAO knocked it out of the park.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: DavidAOlson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dana Turner
...
Yea, perhaps he's looking at the amount of people who have had adverse reactions. I lost a very close friend who died just hours after taking his second shot. I know that millions of shots have been given, but over 5,000 people have died after getting the shot, so perhaps he wants to do the best research he can before he makes this decision. I know it's not vogue to think for yourself any more, but the way the medical community has vacillated on this issue, people have a right to be cautious and not just blindly follow the crowd. If a person has received the shot, why the f@!# do they care what someone else does?

I debated responding to this post, because it's going to be raw for Dana. So Dana, sorry for your loss.

I'm sorry that my response is going to be a bit clinical, but I wasn't satisfied with the responses to Dana's post.

No, you shouldn't do your own research on deaths to make up your own mind about whether the vaccines are relatively safe. And neither should I. We should rely on the highly-skilled multi-disciplinary teams who are gathering and analyzing all the data, and the highly-skilled teams that are reviewing whether those teams are functioning well. With several hundred million people getting shots, and a special emphasis on older people, we have to expect that people will die after they get the shot. The question is whether the shot had anything to do with it. That's one reason why you have to wait around for 15 minutes after you get the shot, or longer if you've had allergic reactions to previous shots. And people running trials and tracking data pay extra attention to deaths, obviously. But my ability to research whether the vaccine caused the death is hopelessly tiny compared to the teams who are working on that data — hopelessly tiny. I am certain I can't research the question to get an answer that's better than those teams, and I'm quite certain that unless you're working on one of those teams, or reviewing them, you should rely on their results. Consider that the J&J vaccine was paused for blood clots, showing up at a rate of a handful per million, until they gathered any possible other cases and put out treatment protocols (because was different from the standard blood clots). They're tracking everything significant.

For this question, doing your own research might be comparable to expecting a young teenager to run an NFL team. Solo. GM to coaching to janitorial services to web design.

Be cautious, sure. But the expert consensus is overwhelming and clear: get vaccinated.

And since I am fully vaccinated, I want to answer the question: why do I care if you get the shot? Because I do care.

1. Because I care about your health, personally. I want more Dana posts. And same for other people generally.
2. Because if anyone become a long-timer, that costs society a lot, directly in care and in lost contributions.
3. Because unvaccinated people are more likely to have the disease, and a lot more likely to spread the disease to other people.
4. Because vaccination is not perfectly protective, and we all remain somewhat at risk.
5. Because I was this disease gone, gone, gone. Or rare, rare, rare. And that requires a lot more people to be vaccinated.
6. Because the Delta strain is more contagious, and more deadly, and is now spreading in the US.

David good post. However, when people like Dana or myself say we are going to do research we don't mean we are going to start from scratch figure it all out with our own studies. We are going to search the internet to find the studies that produced the results you are talking about. We are going to ask others that have looked into it more than ourselves like you have. My reading this post right now is me doing research. You had to research this to know about those yourself. So you did research and came up with your conclusion. Just like I did and just like Dana is doing.

Let's be honest, please. Most people who "do their research" start their statements with things like "Tucker Carlson said..." or "(insert anti-vax website) says...." or "Well my thing is...." This is neither research nor good thinking. Our society is plagued by bad thinking, I'm afraid.

Everybody does some level of research. My reading your last post was research. I've never even heard of Tucker Carlson before reading this post. Somebody listening to their buddy say vaccinations are of the Devil is research. I don't think anybody just flips a coin to decide to get vaccinated or not. I have not researched extensively, but the research I did made me feel very comfortable with getting vaccinated and anybody who comes to me for advice I will recommend they do the same.

Your honor, I rest my case.<<high-fives court reporter and bailiff>>

Why do you choose to go with being a complete jerk when I'm supporting what you have to say. Why. I don't get hateful people like you. I'm livid with rage over this post.

So, actually you DO get it.

No I don't get why people are hateful. I never have and never will. My rage is not me being hateful. I'm extremely angered by his hatefulness. He took an opportunity to find common ground and twisted it into an attack on me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: DavidAOlson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dana Turner
...
Yea, perhaps he's looking at the amount of people who have had adverse reactions. I lost a very close friend who died just hours after taking his second shot. I know that millions of shots have been given, but over 5,000 people have died after getting the shot, so perhaps he wants to do the best research he can before he makes this decision. I know it's not vogue to think for yourself any more, but the way the medical community has vacillated on this issue, people have a right to be cautious and not just blindly follow the crowd. If a person has received the shot, why the f@!# do they care what someone else does?

I debated responding to this post, because it's going to be raw for Dana. So Dana, sorry for your loss.

I'm sorry that my response is going to be a bit clinical, but I wasn't satisfied with the responses to Dana's post.

No, you shouldn't do your own research on deaths to make up your own mind about whether the vaccines are relatively safe. And neither should I. We should rely on the highly-skilled multi-disciplinary teams who are gathering and analyzing all the data, and the highly-skilled teams that are reviewing whether those teams are functioning well. With several hundred million people getting shots, and a special emphasis on older people, we have to expect that people will die after they get the shot. The question is whether the shot had anything to do with it. That's one reason why you have to wait around for 15 minutes after you get the shot, or longer if you've had allergic reactions to previous shots. And people running trials and tracking data pay extra attention to deaths, obviously. But my ability to research whether the vaccine caused the death is hopelessly tiny compared to the teams who are working on that data — hopelessly tiny. I am certain I can't research the question to get an answer that's better than those teams, and I'm quite certain that unless you're working on one of those teams, or reviewing them, you should rely on their results. Consider that the J&J vaccine was paused for blood clots, showing up at a rate of a handful per million, until they gathered any possible other cases and put out treatment protocols (because was different from the standard blood clots). They're tracking everything significant.

For this question, doing your own research might be comparable to expecting a young teenager to run an NFL team. Solo. GM to coaching to janitorial services to web design.

Be cautious, sure. But the expert consensus is overwhelming and clear: get vaccinated.

And since I am fully vaccinated, I want to answer the question: why do I care if you get the shot? Because I do care.

1. Because I care about your health, personally. I want more Dana posts. And same for other people generally.
2. Because if anyone become a long-timer, that costs society a lot, directly in care and in lost contributions.
3. Because unvaccinated people are more likely to have the disease, and a lot more likely to spread the disease to other people.
4. Because vaccination is not perfectly protective, and we all remain somewhat at risk.
5. Because I was this disease gone, gone, gone. Or rare, rare, rare. And that requires a lot more people to be vaccinated.
6. Because the Delta strain is more contagious, and more deadly, and is now spreading in the US.

David good post. However, when people like Dana or myself say we are going to do research we don't mean we are going to start from scratch figure it all out with our own studies. We are going to search the internet to find the studies that produced the results you are talking about. We are going to ask others that have looked into it more than ourselves like you have. My reading this post right now is me doing research. You had to research this to know about those yourself. So you did research and came up with your conclusion. Just like I did and just like Dana is doing.

Let's be honest, please. Most people who "do their research" start their statements with things like "Tucker Carlson said..." or "(insert anti-vax website) says...." or "Well my thing is...." This is neither research nor good thinking. Our society is plagued by bad thinking, I'm afraid.

Everybody does some level of research. My reading your last post was research. I've never even heard of Tucker Carlson before reading this post. Somebody listening to their buddy say vaccinations are of the Devil is research. I don't think anybody just flips a coin to decide to get vaccinated or not. I have not researched extensively, but the research I did made me feel very comfortable with getting vaccinated and anybody who comes to me for advice I will recommend they do the same.

Your honor, I rest my case.<<high-fives court reporter and bailiff>>

Why do you choose to go with being a complete jerk when I'm supporting what you have to say. Why. I don't get hateful people like you. I'm livid with rage over this post.

So, actually you DO get it.

No I don't get why people are hateful. I never have and never will. My rage is not me being hateful. I'm extremely angered by his hatefulness. He took an opportunity to find common ground and twisted it into an attack on me.

You totally got it. Rage on my man!