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: bohumm

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.

100%

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

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.

100%

Everybody still needs to do their own research. You did. I did. DAO did.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

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.

100%

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Anderson

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

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.

100%

Everybody still needs to do their own research. You did. I did. DAO did.

And all the doctors who say therapeutics work and could have saved countless lives did their own research. On actual patients.

Maybe those doctors have some ulterior motive. I'm just going by what they say. I couldn't dissect a frog.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Anderson

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

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.

100%

Everybody still needs to do their own research. You did. I did. DAO did.

And all the doctors who say therapeutics work and could have saved countless lives did their own research. On actual patients.

Maybe those doctors have some ulterior motives. I'm just going by what they say. I couldn't dissect a frog.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Anderson

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

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.

100%

Everybody still needs to do their own research. You did. I did. DAO did.

And all the doctors who say therapeutics work and could have saved countless lives did their own research. On actual patients.

Maybe those doctors have some ulterior motive. I'm just going by what they say. I couldn't dissect a frog.

And bleach/disinfectant/UV light!

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Anderson

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

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.

100%

Everybody still needs to do their own research. You did. I did. DAO did.

And all the doctors who say therapeutics work and could have saved countless lives did their own research. On actual patients.

Maybe those doctors have some ulterior motives. I'm just going by what they say. I couldn't dissect a frog.

I haven't done enough research to know what you mean by therapeutics. Is this an alternative plan to vaccinations?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Anderson
Just treatment by medicines we already have.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Anderson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Anderson

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

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.

100%

Everybody still needs to do their own research. You did. I did. DAO did.

And all the doctors who say therapeutics work and could have saved countless lives did their own research. On actual patients.

Maybe those doctors have some ulterior motive. I'm just going by what they say. I couldn't dissect a frog.

And bleach/disinfectant/UV light!

I'm glad to see the smart ass Bill.

All the fan boy posts had me worried you had been hacked.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen

"Especially since it isn't FDA approved."

This is why we fail as a society and experienced 600,000 COVID deaths plus other ramifications already posted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen

"Especially since it isn't FDA approved."

This is why we fail as a society and experienced 600,000 COVID deaths plus other ramifications already posted.

So what were people suppose to do before the Vaccine; maybe take an FDA approved drug? I thought science is important to you? You really should have pre and post vaccine numbers....(If you are going to blame the non vaccinated group for the pre vaccine deaths).......

quote:

ORIGINAL: Todd M

Peterson is 8 years younger than Newman when we got him.

He's going to light it up.

If you're worried about it you're simply a pessimist.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom Sykes

KG cant dissect the frog, theres no zipper.

Phil wants to, its the key ingredient in his turtle soup.

Mark doesnt want to. With the right therapeutics, dead frogs can become chupacabras, according to some doctors posting online. He doesn’t want to take that chance.

Dammit Bill! Bill has eviscerated that poor frog and the parts are beyond all recognition. He doesnt care, it will never make another dumbass comment again.

Obviously, Tom could dissect that frog with surgical precision but he chooses HBO Max for his entertainment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott

quote:

ORIGINAL: Todd M

Peterson is 8 years younger than Newman when we got him.

He's going to light it up.

If you're worried about it you're simply a pessimist.

The noted decline in the past two years shows you may be wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen

"Especially since it isn't FDA approved."

This is why we fail as a society and experienced 600,000 COVID deaths plus other ramifications already posted.

So what were people suppose to do before the Vaccine; maybe take an FDA approved drug? I thought science is important to you? You really should have pre and post vaccine numbers....(If you are going to blame the non vaccinated group for the pre vaccine deaths).......

I'm not, and the numbers were an illustration. The point is people of your ilk or persuasion have fought this all along with the "Give Me Liberty and Give Me Death" mantra. Idiots like Bruce Johnson saying masks do not work missing entirely that they can at least help. And even now you discredit the vaccine with misleading statements like "Especially since it isn't FDA approved." Much of society choosing to follow their leaders failed and inept policy combined conveniently with pure selfishness led to many unnecessary deaths. And while I consider you more moderate in the sense that you have masked, vaccinated, etc, a large segment of society is giving the middle finger to its health.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Todd M

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott

quote:

ORIGINAL: Todd M

Peterson is 8 years younger than Newman when we got him.

He's going to light it up.

If you're worried about it you're simply a pessimist.

The noted decline in the past two years shows you may be wrong.

Are you allowing for scheme change?

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Anderson
Just treatment by medicines we already have.

Are you talking treatments to prevent COVID or treatments after the fact?

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: Todd M

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott

quote:

ORIGINAL: Todd M

Peterson is 8 years younger than Newman when we got him.

He's going to light it up.

If you're worried about it you're simply a pessimist.

The noted decline in the past two years shows you may be wrong.

Are you allowing for scheme change?

This is the heart of the debate. The last 2 years Peterson has been in a scheme that featured the most single coverage by cornerbacks in the NFL. That's very different from the scheme Zim runs. Scheme fit is a big part of the equation. We were all elated when Xavier Rhodes left. If I remember correctly (which I often don't), he had a nice bounce back year in a different system.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TJSweens

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen

"Especially since it isn't FDA approved."

This is why we fail as a society and experienced 600,000 COVID deaths plus other ramifications already posted.

So what were people suppose to do before the Vaccine; maybe take an FDA approved drug? I thought science is important to you? You really should have pre and post vaccine numbers....(If you are going to blame the non vaccinated group for the pre vaccine deaths).......

I'm not, and the numbers were an illustration. The point is people of your ilk or persuasion have fought this all along with the "Give Me Liberty and Give Me Death" mantra. Idiots like Bruce Johnson saying masks do not work missing entirely that they can at least help. And even now you discredit the vaccine with misleading statements like "Especially since it isn't FDA approved." Much of society choosing to follow their leaders failed and inept policy combined conveniently with pure selfishness led to many unnecessary deaths. And while I consider you more moderate in the sense that you have masked, vaccinated, etc, a large segment of society is giving the middle finger to its health.

This one kills me. The people who invoke the founding fathers as they defy mask mandates and refuse vaccinations. One person even told me that the founding fathers would spin in their graves if they saw the way our rights were trampled with covid restrictions. My answer was that the founding fathers would come out of those graves and kick you in the nuts for making such a stupid statement.