All things Chinese CoronaVirus

[Typical Lax Dad]

Relevant or just noise? https://twitter.com/gregabbott_tx/statu ... 52555?s=21

there's been a lot of noise by states and congressmen about moving to block. it's likely genuine in that it's 1st inning.

Interesting that the issued it on a Sat.
Well before the mandate is even due in Jan.
it would be excellent for my company if this got scrapped.

Thousands of Americans face losing their jobs for being unvaccinated, while thousands of untested, unvaccinated illegal migrants continue to stream across our S border to be transported throughout the country. ...yet an unvaxed NFL QB is a hazard. We've lost our friggin' minds.

And our minds were clear when a bunch of folks were going crazy about kneeling during the national anthem by a NFL player?

I gather our lib friends at Fanlax also believe that the NFL Combine is the same as the early American slave trade?

[MDlaxfan76]

Thousands of Americans face losing their jobs for being unvaccinated, while thousands of untested, unvaccinated illegal migrants continue to stream across our S border to be transported throughout the country. ...yet an unvaxed NFL QB is a hazard. We've lost our friggin' minds.

Proof? This unproven charge has been made repeatedly by the far right but has been denied by the Biden administration.

No, migrants in immigrant detention facilities are not required to get the COVID-19 vaccine...
https://www.abc10.com/article/news/veri ... 86c621fe95

from your link: "means any migrant looking to obtain permanent residency in the U.S. will need a COVID-19 vaccination"

but it does not address the issue of whether there is mass crossing of the border with people being bused all over the USA as previously alleged

I'm not sure that Salty would care whether his statement is misleading or false or not.

While it is likely true that most illegal migrants are not vaccinated when they arrive, given the relative lack of vaccinations in the countries from which they are fleeing, the article makes clear that the federal government simply does not have the authority to force ANYONE to get vaccinated as is implied by the whine that they are not (and untested). That includes Americans. No one is forced to be vaccinated, they have a choice.

Legal immigrants have a choice as to whether they want to get vaccinated or not, but their immigration status won't be changed if they do not. So, they can decide they don't want to do so.

Folks claim they want "freedom" to make such a choice for themselves but apparently are willing to deny it of others.

It would be interesting to know what percentage of migrants, legal or undocumented, actually choose to be vaccinated when offered a chance to do so, by someone speaking their own language, etc.

[wgdsr]

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/325 ... artnership

Cancel culture!!

it's pervasive. what's next, state farm?

https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2021/11/5 ... cafee-show

i stopped reading after they quoted a study from end date july 17 on vaccine effectiveness. on november 5.

The ringer is a bunch of 20 somethings under Bill Simmons but they have their finger on the pulse of pop culture a lot better than anyone on these boards and I think are correct. The guy is lying like crazy, being deceitful and apparently as big a jerkoff and tool as Brett Farve and just about every other athlete we think we know. That’s the real point. Nobody reads the technical information I put up on numerous topics and no one wants to listen to what anyone else has to say. They’ve all got it figured out even when they claim they’re trying to learn or understand. So it goes.

if any of this relates to me, you'll have to reword so i understand what you're saying.

The point wasn’t to learn anything technical simply to illustrate that a website that is closer to people under 40 sees the guys lying and duplicitous nature and soft weakness for what it is. To dismiss it because they used some old study completely misunderstands the value of the piece. This thread is titled “all things coronavirus” not “technical scientific inquiry of the disease”

ya, i never said i was trying to learn something technical in the piece. but if someone is attempting to write a persuasive argument for x, y or z, and decides to lazily or (probably) purposefully put out... let's be charitable and call it dated material in defense of said arguments... i'm not obligated to attempt to "listen to what they have to say" any longer. they've got plenty of good data they can use. i don't misunderstand anything, thanks. i choose to not listen to that messenger.

I must be missing something. What was so egregiously unreasonable or wrong about the study that makes it inappropriate to cite as a refutation of Rodgers' insistence on “This idea that it’s the pandemic of the unvaccinated, it’s just a total lie,” ?

Did you simply want a study with a later date attached?

If you say, 'hey, it's just that it's not the very best study to challenge Rodgers' assertions', well ok. Probably so.

Seems to me that we know that the vaccine reduces both spread and that it dramatically reduces harmful outcomes among those infected. If more people were vaccinated, sooner, fewer would have died.

Doesn't mean there's zero transmission or harmful impact upon the vaccinated, but it's much greater likelihood among the unvaccinated.

So, what the big deal with not finding the even better, more recent proof that Rodgers' decision...yes, back in July, not to get vaccinated was all wet?

Nothing else they say is relevant??

It was a silly response. Childish even. I can acknowledge the weaknesses sin the ringer but when we’re talking about social relevance they can add value.

The dismissiveness is absurd unless somebody thinks they’ve gotten it all figured out. If I wasn’t going to finish a piece I wouldn’t bother responding to the post either. That’s kind of a dbag approach.

Let’s defend a guy who tried to invoke MLK as a defense for being duplicitous and wanting it both ways and special treatment in life. What a joke.

whoa, didn't see this one. at least this one isn't passive aggressive, so there's that.

i'll spell it out again... if i think an author/commenter (not a main storyline participant) is not trustworthy, i don't intend to try to discern which parts might be truthful, which need corroboration, which i can take at face value. there are probably 100s of thousands of takes on this subject already from twitter to publications that i can wade thru. don't need this guy or gal's. something happened around july to change the game a bit, did it not?

at no time did i defend mr. rodgers' take on the situation. where you get that, i have no idea.

[Farfromgeneva]

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/325 ... artnership

Cancel culture!!

it's pervasive. what's next, state farm?

https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2021/11/5 ... cafee-show

i stopped reading after they quoted a study from end date july 17 on vaccine effectiveness. on november 5.

The ringer is a bunch of 20 somethings under Bill Simmons but they have their finger on the pulse of pop culture a lot better than anyone on these boards and I think are correct. The guy is lying like crazy, being deceitful and apparently as big a jerkoff and tool as Brett Farve and just about every other athlete we think we know. That’s the real point. Nobody reads the technical information I put up on numerous topics and no one wants to listen to what anyone else has to say. They’ve all got it figured out even when they claim they’re trying to learn or understand. So it goes.

if any of this relates to me, you'll have to reword so i understand what you're saying.

The point wasn’t to learn anything technical simply to illustrate that a website that is closer to people under 40 sees the guys lying and duplicitous nature and soft weakness for what it is. To dismiss it because they used some old study completely misunderstands the value of the piece. This thread is titled “all things coronavirus” not “technical scientific inquiry of the disease”

ya, i never said i was trying to learn something technical in the piece. but if someone is attempting to write a persuasive argument for x, y or z, and decides to lazily or (probably) purposefully put out... let's be charitable and call it dated material in defense of said arguments... i'm not obligated to attempt to "listen to what they have to say" any longer. they've got plenty of good data they can use. i don't misunderstand anything, thanks. i choose to not listen to that messenger.

I must be missing something. What was so egregiously unreasonable or wrong about the study that makes it inappropriate to cite as a refutation of Rodgers' insistence on “This idea that it’s the pandemic of the unvaccinated, it’s just a total lie,” ?

Did you simply want a study with a later date attached?

If you say, 'hey, it's just that it's not the very best study to challenge Rodgers' assertions', well ok. Probably so.

Seems to me that we know that the vaccine reduces both spread and that it dramatically reduces harmful outcomes among those infected. If more people were vaccinated, sooner, fewer would have died.

Doesn't mean there's zero transmission or harmful impact upon the vaccinated, but it's much greater likelihood among the unvaccinated.

So, what the big deal with not finding the even better, more recent proof that Rodgers' decision...yes, back in July, not to get vaccinated was all wet?

Nothing else they say is relevant??

It was a silly response. Childish even. I can acknowledge the weaknesses sin the ringer but when we’re talking about social relevance they can add value.

The dismissiveness is absurd unless somebody thinks they’ve gotten it all figured out. If I wasn’t going to finish a piece I wouldn’t bother responding to the post either. That’s kind of a dbag approach.

Let’s defend a guy who tried to invoke MLK as a defense for being duplicitous and wanting it both ways and special treatment in life. What a joke.

whoa, didn't see this one. at least this one isn't passive aggressive, so there's that.

i'll spell it out again... if i think an author/commenter (not a main storyline participant) is not trustworthy, i don't intend to try to discern which parts might be truthful, which need corroboration, which i can take at face value. there are probably 100s of thousands of takes on this subject already from twitter to publications that i can wade thru. don't need this guy or gal's. something happened around july to change the game a bit, did it not?

at no time did i defend mr. rodgers' take on the situation. where you get that, i have no idea.

What was the point in the post about stopping reading. That I was wasting everyone’s time putting it up there because you choose to not try to take value from it based on your approach? (”I don’t intend…). That everyone should adopt your approach and avoid opening the link? I don’t really care but would think that this post reply I’m referencing is either somebody wanting to be heard for no reason of value or they intend to confer some other meaning.

You’d don’t spell it out in your first reply, quoting the link. And as you’ve state before you are sometimes (often?) intentionally unclear.

[Farfromgeneva]

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/325 ... artnership

Cancel culture!!

it's pervasive. what's next, state farm?

https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2021/11/5 ... cafee-show

i stopped reading after they quoted a study from end date july 17 on vaccine effectiveness. on november 5.

What is the point of this post? Just to talk and be heard but conveying nothing else?

[Farfromgeneva]

Cue now the allegation I’m bullying

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/325 ... artnership

Cancel culture!!

it's pervasive. what's next, state farm?

https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2021/11/5 ... cafee-show

i stopped reading after they quoted a study from end date july 17 on vaccine effectiveness. on november 5.

The ringer is a bunch of 20 somethings under Bill Simmons but they have their finger on the pulse of pop culture a lot better than anyone on these boards and I think are correct. The guy is lying like crazy, being deceitful and apparently as big a jerkoff and tool as Brett Farve and just about every other athlete we think we know. That’s the real point. Nobody reads the technical information I put up on numerous topics and no one wants to listen to what anyone else has to say. They’ve all got it figured out even when they claim they’re trying to learn or understand. So it goes.

if any of this relates to me, you'll have to reword so i understand what you're saying.

The point wasn’t to learn anything technical simply to illustrate that a website that is closer to people under 40 sees the guys lying and duplicitous nature and soft weakness for what it is. To dismiss it because they used some old study completely misunderstands the value of the piece. This thread is titled “all things coronavirus” not “technical scientific inquiry of the disease”

ya, i never said i was trying to learn something technical in the piece. but if someone is attempting to write a persuasive argument for x, y or z, and decides to lazily or (probably) purposefully put out... let's be charitable and call it dated material in defense of said arguments... i'm not obligated to attempt to "listen to what they have to say" any longer. they've got plenty of good data they can use. i don't misunderstand anything, thanks. i choose to not listen to that messenger.

I must be missing something. What was so egregiously unreasonable or wrong about the study that makes it inappropriate to cite as a refutation of Rodgers' insistence on “This idea that it’s the pandemic of the unvaccinated, it’s just a total lie,” ?

Did you simply want a study with a later date attached?

If you say, 'hey, it's just that it's not the very best study to challenge Rodgers' assertions', well ok. Probably so.

Seems to me that we know that the vaccine reduces both spread and that it dramatically reduces harmful outcomes among those infected. If more people were vaccinated, sooner, fewer would have died.

Doesn't mean there's zero transmission or harmful impact upon the vaccinated, but it's much greater likelihood among the unvaccinated.

So, what the big deal with not finding the even better, more recent proof that Rodgers' decision...yes, back in July, not to get vaccinated was all wet?

Nothing else they say is relevant??

It was a silly response. Childish even. I can acknowledge the weaknesses sin the ringer but when we’re talking about social relevance they can add value.

The dismissiveness is absurd unless somebody thinks they’ve gotten it all figured out. If I wasn’t going to finish a piece I wouldn’t bother responding to the post either. That’s kind of a dbag approach.

Let’s defend a guy who tried to invoke MLK as a defense for being duplicitous and wanting it both ways and special treatment in life. What a joke.

whoa, didn't see this one. at least this one isn't passive aggressive, so there's that.

i'll spell it out again... if i think an author/commenter (not a main storyline participant) is not trustworthy, i don't intend to try to discern which parts might be truthful, which need corroboration, which i can take at face value. there are probably 100s of thousands of takes on this subject already from twitter to publications that i can wade thru. don't need this guy or gal's. something happened around july to change the game a bit, did it not?

at no time did i defend mr. rodgers' take on the situation. where you get that, i have no idea.

So, what's your direct, not obtuse, opinion of Rodgers' argument as to why he isn't vaccinated?

What better evidence would you cite that would support your opinion, if not the one which that article cited in its analysis?

I get it that you took issue with that specific citation as the best for their argument with that one element of Rodgers' statements, but what would you cite instead?

To help a little, here's a hint: you come across as if supporting Rodgers, whether that was actually your intent or not. If you actually think that Rodgers is looney tunes, making all sorts of specious arguments, or, in the alternative some other specific view, then it would be helpful for you to be clear about it.

[wgdsr]

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/325 ... artnership

Cancel culture!!

it's pervasive. what's next, state farm?

https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2021/11/5 ... cafee-show

i stopped reading after they quoted a study from end date july 17 on vaccine effectiveness. on november 5.

The ringer is a bunch of 20 somethings under Bill Simmons but they have their finger on the pulse of pop culture a lot better than anyone on these boards and I think are correct. The guy is lying like crazy, being deceitful and apparently as big a jerkoff and tool as Brett Farve and just about every other athlete we think we know. That’s the real point. Nobody reads the technical information I put up on numerous topics and no one wants to listen to what anyone else has to say. They’ve all got it figured out even when they claim they’re trying to learn or understand. So it goes.

if any of this relates to me, you'll have to reword so i understand what you're saying.

The point wasn’t to learn anything technical simply to illustrate that a website that is closer to people under 40 sees the guys lying and duplicitous nature and soft weakness for what it is. To dismiss it because they used some old study completely misunderstands the value of the piece. This thread is titled “all things coronavirus” not “technical scientific inquiry of the disease”

ya, i never said i was trying to learn something technical in the piece. but if someone is attempting to write a persuasive argument for x, y or z, and decides to lazily or (probably) purposefully put out... let's be charitable and call it dated material in defense of said arguments... i'm not obligated to attempt to "listen to what they have to say" any longer. they've got plenty of good data they can use. i don't misunderstand anything, thanks. i choose to not listen to that messenger.

I must be missing something. What was so egregiously unreasonable or wrong about the study that makes it inappropriate to cite as a refutation of Rodgers' insistence on “This idea that it’s the pandemic of the unvaccinated, it’s just a total lie,” ?

Did you simply want a study with a later date attached?

If you say, 'hey, it's just that it's not the very best study to challenge Rodgers' assertions', well ok. Probably so.

Seems to me that we know that the vaccine reduces both spread and that it dramatically reduces harmful outcomes among those infected. If more people were vaccinated, sooner, fewer would have died.

Doesn't mean there's zero transmission or harmful impact upon the vaccinated, but it's much greater likelihood among the unvaccinated.

So, what the big deal with not finding the even better, more recent proof that Rodgers' decision...yes, back in July, not to get vaccinated was all wet?

Nothing else they say is relevant??

It was a silly response. Childish even. I can acknowledge the weaknesses sin the ringer but when we’re talking about social relevance they can add value.

The dismissiveness is absurd unless somebody thinks they’ve gotten it all figured out. If I wasn’t going to finish a piece I wouldn’t bother responding to the post either. That’s kind of a dbag approach.

Let’s defend a guy who tried to invoke MLK as a defense for being duplicitous and wanting it both ways and special treatment in life. What a joke.

whoa, didn't see this one. at least this one isn't passive aggressive, so there's that.

i'll spell it out again... if i think an author/commenter (not a main storyline participant) is not trustworthy, i don't intend to try to discern which parts might be truthful, which need corroboration, which i can take at face value. there are probably 100s of thousands of takes on this subject already from twitter to publications that i can wade thru. don't need this guy or gal's. something happened around july to change the game a bit, did it not?

at no time did i defend mr. rodgers' take on the situation. where you get that, i have no idea.

What was the point in the post about stopping reading. That I was wasting everyone’s time putting it up there because you choose to not try to take value from it based on your approach? (”I don’t intend…). That everyone should adopt your approach and avoid opening the link? I don’t really care but would think that this post reply I’m referencing is either somebody wanting to be heard for no reason of value or they intend to confer some other meaning.

You’d don’t spell it out in your first reply, quoting the link. And as you’ve state before you are sometimes (often?) intentionally unclear.

all the good stuff. 3rd time? 4th? exactly what i said. because in my mind, the author is lazy or duplicitous.. me... i... am out on the takes as a result. where you go tossing all the other crap around is on you.

what was the point of posting the link, that we should all agree with everything in it? this is fun.

methinks you're a little hypersensitive here.

[MDlaxfan76]

See my questions above, wgdsr.

[Peter Brown]

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/325 ... artnership

Cancel culture!!

it's pervasive. what's next, state farm?

https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2021/11/5 ... cafee-show

i stopped reading after they quoted a study from end date july 17 on vaccine effectiveness. on november 5.

The ringer is a bunch of 20 somethings under Bill Simmons but they have their finger on the pulse of pop culture a lot better than anyone on these boards and I think are correct. The guy is lying like crazy, being deceitful and apparently as big a jerkoff and tool as Brett Farve and just about every other athlete we think we know. That’s the real point. Nobody reads the technical information I put up on numerous topics and no one wants to listen to what anyone else has to say. They’ve all got it figured out even when they claim they’re trying to learn or understand. So it goes.

if any of this relates to me, you'll have to reword so i understand what you're saying.

The point wasn’t to learn anything technical simply to illustrate that a website that is closer to people under 40 sees the guys lying and duplicitous nature and soft weakness for what it is. To dismiss it because they used some old study completely misunderstands the value of the piece. This thread is titled “all things coronavirus” not “technical scientific inquiry of the disease”

ya, i never said i was trying to learn something technical in the piece. but if someone is attempting to write a persuasive argument for x, y or z, and decides to lazily or (probably) purposefully put out... let's be charitable and call it dated material in defense of said arguments... i'm not obligated to attempt to "listen to what they have to say" any longer. they've got plenty of good data they can use. i don't misunderstand anything, thanks. i choose to not listen to that messenger.

I must be missing something. What was so egregiously unreasonable or wrong about the study that makes it inappropriate to cite as a refutation of Rodgers' insistence on “This idea that it’s the pandemic of the unvaccinated, it’s just a total lie,” ?

Did you simply want a study with a later date attached?

If you say, 'hey, it's just that it's not the very best study to challenge Rodgers' assertions', well ok. Probably so.

Seems to me that we know that the vaccine reduces both spread and that it dramatically reduces harmful outcomes among those infected. If more people were vaccinated, sooner, fewer would have died.

Doesn't mean there's zero transmission or harmful impact upon the vaccinated, but it's much greater likelihood among the unvaccinated.

So, what the big deal with not finding the even better, more recent proof that Rodgers' decision...yes, back in July, not to get vaccinated was all wet?

Nothing else they say is relevant??

It was a silly response. Childish even. I can acknowledge the weaknesses sin the ringer but when we’re talking about social relevance they can add value.

The dismissiveness is absurd unless somebody thinks they’ve gotten it all figured out. If I wasn’t going to finish a piece I wouldn’t bother responding to the post either. That’s kind of a dbag approach.

Let’s defend a guy who tried to invoke MLK as a defense for being duplicitous and wanting it both ways and special treatment in life. What a joke.

whoa, didn't see this one. at least this one isn't passive aggressive, so there's that.

i'll spell it out again... if i think an author/commenter (not a main storyline participant) is not trustworthy, i don't intend to try to discern which parts might be truthful, which need corroboration, which i can take at face value. there are probably 100s of thousands of takes on this subject already from twitter to publications that i can wade thru. don't need this guy or gal's. something happened around july to change the game a bit, did it not?

at no time did i defend mr. rodgers' take on the situation. where you get that, i have no idea.

What was the point in the post about stopping reading. That I was wasting everyone’s time putting it up there because you choose to not try to take value from it based on your approach? (”I don’t intend…). That everyone should adopt your approach and avoid opening the link? I don’t really care but would think that this post reply I’m referencing is either somebody wanting to be heard for no reason of value or they intend to confer some other meaning.

You’d don’t spell it out in your first reply, quoting the link. And as you’ve state before you are sometimes (often?) intentionally unclear.

all the good stuff. 3rd time? 4th? exactly what i said. because in my mind, the author is lazy or duplicitous.. me... i... am out on the takes as a result. where you go tossing all the other crap around is on you.

what was the point of posting the link, that we should all agree with everything in it? this is fun.

methinks you're a little hypersensitive here.

Hit them with facts WGDSR. You have them, they don’t.

https://www.newsweek.com/how-fauci-fool ... on-1643839

“Natural immunity. By pushing vaccine mandates, Dr. Fauci ignores naturally acquired immunity among the COVID-recovered, of which there are more than 45 million in the United States. Mounting evidence indicates that natural immunity is stronger and longer lasting than vaccine-induced immunity. [Eds.: Long-term trends are still unclear. A recent study reached the opposite conclusion, but was criticized by an author of this op-ed.] In a study from Israel, the vaccinated were 27 times more likely to get symptomatic COVID than the unvaccinated who had recovered from a prior infection.”

Rodgers is more protected now than anyone on this board who has had two or wants eighteen jabs.

That explains the hypersensitivity, btw.

[Farfromgeneva]

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/325 ... artnership

Cancel culture!!

it's pervasive. what's next, state farm?

https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2021/11/5 ... cafee-show

i stopped reading after they quoted a study from end date july 17 on vaccine effectiveness. on november 5.

The ringer is a bunch of 20 somethings under Bill Simmons but they have their finger on the pulse of pop culture a lot better than anyone on these boards and I think are correct. The guy is lying like crazy, being deceitful and apparently as big a jerkoff and tool as Brett Farve and just about every other athlete we think we know. That’s the real point. Nobody reads the technical information I put up on numerous topics and no one wants to listen to what anyone else has to say. They’ve all got it figured out even when they claim they’re trying to learn or understand. So it goes.

if any of this relates to me, you'll have to reword so i understand what you're saying.

The point wasn’t to learn anything technical simply to illustrate that a website that is closer to people under 40 sees the guys lying and duplicitous nature and soft weakness for what it is. To dismiss it because they used some old study completely misunderstands the value of the piece. This thread is titled “all things coronavirus” not “technical scientific inquiry of the disease”

ya, i never said i was trying to learn something technical in the piece. but if someone is attempting to write a persuasive argument for x, y or z, and decides to lazily or (probably) purposefully put out... let's be charitable and call it dated material in defense of said arguments... i'm not obligated to attempt to "listen to what they have to say" any longer. they've got plenty of good data they can use. i don't misunderstand anything, thanks. i choose to not listen to that messenger.

I must be missing something. What was so egregiously unreasonable or wrong about the study that makes it inappropriate to cite as a refutation of Rodgers' insistence on “This idea that it’s the pandemic of the unvaccinated, it’s just a total lie,” ?

Did you simply want a study with a later date attached?

If you say, 'hey, it's just that it's not the very best study to challenge Rodgers' assertions', well ok. Probably so.

Seems to me that we know that the vaccine reduces both spread and that it dramatically reduces harmful outcomes among those infected. If more people were vaccinated, sooner, fewer would have died.

Doesn't mean there's zero transmission or harmful impact upon the vaccinated, but it's much greater likelihood among the unvaccinated.

So, what the big deal with not finding the even better, more recent proof that Rodgers' decision...yes, back in July, not to get vaccinated was all wet?

Nothing else they say is relevant??

It was a silly response. Childish even. I can acknowledge the weaknesses sin the ringer but when we’re talking about social relevance they can add value.

The dismissiveness is absurd unless somebody thinks they’ve gotten it all figured out. If I wasn’t going to finish a piece I wouldn’t bother responding to the post either. That’s kind of a dbag approach.

Let’s defend a guy who tried to invoke MLK as a defense for being duplicitous and wanting it both ways and special treatment in life. What a joke.

whoa, didn't see this one. at least this one isn't passive aggressive, so there's that.

i'll spell it out again... if i think an author/commenter (not a main storyline participant) is not trustworthy, i don't intend to try to discern which parts might be truthful, which need corroboration, which i can take at face value. there are probably 100s of thousands of takes on this subject already from twitter to publications that i can wade thru. don't need this guy or gal's. something happened around july to change the game a bit, did it not?

at no time did i defend mr. rodgers' take on the situation. where you get that, i have no idea.

What was the point in the post about stopping reading. That I was wasting everyone’s time putting it up there because you choose to not try to take value from it based on your approach? (”I don’t intend…). That everyone should adopt your approach and avoid opening the link? I don’t really care but would think that this post reply I’m referencing is either somebody wanting to be heard for no reason of value or they intend to confer some other meaning.

You’d don’t spell it out in your first reply, quoting the link. And as you’ve state before you are sometimes (often?) intentionally unclear.

all the good stuff. 3rd time? 4th? exactly what i said. because in my mind, the author is lazy or duplicitous.. me... i... am out on the takes as a result. where you go tossing all the other crap around is on you.

what was the point of posting the link, that we should all agree with everything in it? this is fun.

methinks you're a little hypersensitive here.

Cool. I’m good. I guess you could’ve stopped given that disposition at the title of the piece if you were actually thinking while reading it then and not even gotten to that point so sorry you wasted the time to read that far in. Of course you understand that not everyone approaches things the way you do or that your approach is solely correct I hope.

Perhaps you could consider to stop wasting others time by writing things just to “hear” yourself by posting a statement with clear value to a york since you are just speaking for yourself. Or consider that maybe. Be unclear then get offended is just plain dumb when playing sophomoric games by not making statements or taking positions. certainly not considering context of time stamps and other dialogue and comments in between.

I had plenty of points for posting the link but why would you ask you are out as you declared. So no reason for me to share.

[MDlaxfan76]

Idiots.
Survival of infection, even mild infections, creates antibodies with immunity benefits. True.
But adding a vaccination greatly increases that immunity over not doing so.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/f ... le/2782139

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... unity.html

Layman's explanation: https://www.statnews.com/2021/10/19/pol ... -covid-19/

In Rodgers' case, he was far more vulnerable to infection, especially serious outcomes from infection, as someone not vaccinated than had he been vaccinated. We're all paying financially for his (and those like him) healthcare costs to the system; he's only paying his deductible if there is one (someone can tell us about the NFL's insurance, but I suspect it's great coverage).

And that doesn't deal with his danger of spreading his infection to others.

But, given he's taking monoclonal antibodies (very expensive), his vaccination should come not until 90 days later, according to CDC guidelines. That'll put him beyond the season?

But here's the real issue for Rodgers...he lied about it. He didn't have the cojones to go on the record as a vax denier back when he made the decision...and the Packers and the NFL covered for that lie. Did his team mates know he was lying? did they cover for him too? Did the people he was coming into contact with, mask-less, know?

But hey, some people are attracted to lying and liars...they think it's a feature not a bug.

BTW, anyone want to give odds that he doesn't actually have an allergy to any of the components in any of the vaccines?
Apparently a very, very tiny % of people have an allergy to the pig, something or other, in the MRNA vaccine solutions...but that can be tested for and you either do or don't...so, has he actually been tested (not by Joe Rogan etc) and has such an allergy? or was that another lie?

Of course, if he did, then J&J would be the go to instead of Pfizer or Moderna. I'd put my money right now that it's another lie.

[Peter Brown]

Colorado is a basket case.

https://coloradosun.com/2021/11/05/coro ... tions-why/

“Mask-wearing has dropped way off. But those factors exist in other states, too, and their cases have declined”

“There’s another impact of the virus that is straining hospitals right now: For more than a year and a half, people have been putting off medical care that they needed, trying to avoid a visit to the hospital or doctor’s office during a global pandemic.”

“Mehta said patients are coming in with advance-stage cancer or organ failure. He said ICUs are seeing patients coming in with complications related to HIV infections — a rarity in recent years when improvements in prescription drugs have helped patients control their infections.”

Florida oth now has lowest COVID-19 case rate in the country. They did it without vaccine mandates, without mask mandates in school & with no restrictions on businesses. Life simply went on.

You shouldn’t be surprised that more people wish to live in Florida than any other state.

[a fan]

Florida oth now has lowest COVID-19 case rate in the country. They did it without vaccine mandates, without mask mandates in school & with no restrictions on businesses. Life simply went on.

And had near the highest death rate per capita in a State where you can eat and work outside nearly 365 days a year.

So yep, so long as you or someone in your family wasn't one of the 60,000+ dead? This was a great policy.

But there weren't zero restrictions, btw, Pete.

[Brooklyn]

Folks claim they want "freedom" to make such a choice for themselves but apparently are willing to deny it of others.

Yep, those crap for brains right wingers. They say government is too big and far too intrusive into people's lives. Yet, those same delusionals applaud when government police impose Gestapo criminal tactics in the ghettos or when government invades foreign countries, imposes puppet regimes, and dictates to internationals how to run their lives. SOS every time.

[Farfromgeneva]

Relevant or just noise? https://twitter.com/gregabbott_tx/statu ... 52555?s=21

there's been a lot of noise by states and congressmen about moving to block. it's likely genuine in that it's 1st inning.

Interesting that the issued it on a Sat.
Well before the mandate is even due in Jan.
it would be excellent for my company if this got scrapped.

Thousands of Americans face losing their jobs for being unvaccinated, while thousands of untested, unvaccinated illegal migrants continue to stream across our S border to be transported throughout the country. ...yet an unvaxed NFL QB is a hazard. We've lost our friggin' minds.

And our minds were clear when a bunch of folks were going crazy about kneeling during the national anthem by a NFL player?

I gather our lib friends at Fanlax also believe that the NFL Combine is the same as the early American slave trade?

This one never gets old

[MDlaxfan76]

Florida oth now has lowest COVID-19 case rate in the country. They did it without vaccine mandates, without mask mandates in school & with no restrictions on businesses. Life simply went on.

And had near the highest death rate per capita in a State where you can eat and work outside nearly 365 days a year.

So yep, so long as you or someone in your family wasn't one of the 60,000+ dead? This was a great policy.

But there weren't zero restrictions, btw, Pete.

Higher death rate per capita than any first world country as well.

[Peter Brown]

Florida oth now has lowest COVID-19 case rate in the country. They did it without vaccine mandates, without mask mandates in school & with no restrictions on businesses. Life simply went on.

And had near the highest death rate per capita in a State where you can eat and work outside nearly 365 days a year.

So yep, so long as you or someone in your family wasn't one of the 60,000+ dead? This was a great policy.

But there weren't zero restrictions, btw, Pete.

You’ve never lived in Florida June through September?

The only outside movement during that time are the iguanas and gators.

In any event, I’m breathlessly waiting this board piling on your Governor for obviously mismanaging the pandemic. I mean, right? Folks are still blaming Desantis for our surge.

[a fan]

You’ve never lived in Florida June through September?

The only outside movement during that time are the iguanas and gators.

In any event, I’m breathlessly waiting this board piling on your Governor for obviously mismanaging the pandemic. I mean, right? Folks are still blaming Desantis for our surge.

Dude. I've said the exact same thing since the shutdown started: there are no right moves for Governors in these States, and that includes your DeSantis.

Too many restrictions? People lose jobs and the economy is hammered. Too few? More people die. And it's impossible to tell where the right line is between heavy restrictions and no restrictions. And add in that every State is different.....to wit, our discussion of Florida weather.

I'd hope that DeSantis isn't just virtue signaling with his pandemic choices to make his White House run, Pete. You'd do yourself a favor to think on that for a while. I hope he is just doing what he thinks is best for his citizens. But he is, after all, a politician......

[Peter Brown]

You’ve never lived in Florida June through September?

The only outside movement during that time are the iguanas and gators.

In any event, I’m breathlessly waiting this board piling on your Governor for obviously mismanaging the pandemic. I mean, right? Folks are still blaming Desantis for our surge.

Dude. I've said the exact same thing since the shutdown started: there are no right moves for Governors in these States, and that includes your DeSantis.

Too many restrictions? People lose jobs and the economy is hammered. Too few? More people die. And it's impossible to tell where the right line is between heavy restrictions and no restrictions. And add in that every State is different.....to wit, our discussion of Florida weather.

I'd hope that DeSantis isn't just virtue signaling with his pandemic choices to make his White House run, Pete. You'd do yourself a favor to think on that for a while. I hope he is just doing what he thinks is best for his citizens. But he is, after all, a politician......

Just so ya know, I’m fairly sure a number of posters here at Fanlax were directly blaming my Governor for our surge….maybe you weren’t in that camp. But others assuredly were.

They won’t be blaming Polis for Colorado’s surge, that we can be sure of.

Wonder why…