LaxPower Back-Up Stick

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 3:29 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 3:10 pm I think you are missing the point....

For example. Someone like MD has had 3 shots of Moderna (if I understand correctly) went cruising the 7 seas, and got sick....fever, sore throat etc. If he were in his 80's he'd likely be admitted to the hospital, and of course they'd run a battery of tests, keeping him overnight quite possibly.....tying up a bed. They ALL are not unvaxxed in there.

You're missing the point...

The POINT is that the unvaccinated make up a large majority of COVID hospitalizations right now.

Hospitalization rates are much higher for the unvaccinated. Yes, I know people can still get COVID if vaccinated. Some of them end up in the hospital. Just nowhere near the same rate as the unvaxxed. My dad had it in August and was double vaxxed. Wasn't a fun week but he avoided the hospital and severe COVID.

We could reduce cases, hospitalizations, deaths, lack of hospital beds and surgical suites if people would just get vaccinated.

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid ... s-benefits
https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o5
https://time.com/6138566/pandemic-of-unvaccinated/
https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Docume ... inated.pdf

youthathletics wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 3:10 pm I think you are missing the point....

For example. Someone like MD has had 3 shots of Moderna (if I understand correctly) went cruising the 7 seas, and got sick....fever, sore throat etc. If he were in his 80's he'd likely be admitted to the hospital, and of course they'd run a battery of tests, keeping him overnight quite possibly.....tying up a bed. They ALL are not unvaxxed in there.

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 12:12 pm The old man is mid 80's. Has had a few liters of fluid drained from his lungs over the past couple of months. Doc finally figures out what's wrong, there is a tear in the lining of the lungs. Says surgery is needed to close up the tear. Surgery needs to happen fairly quickly as the old man is starting chemo on a rare and aggressive cancer after he's healed.

His local hospital is not scheduling non-emergency surgeries due to too many COVID patients. They say check back on a weekly basis, call us on Monday.

youthathletics wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 3:32 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 3:28 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 3:10 pm I think you are missing the point....

For example. Someone like MD has had 3 shots of Moderna (if I understand correctly) went cruising the 7 seas, and got sick....fever, sore throat etc. If he were in his 80's he'd likely be admitted to the hospital, and of course they'd run a battery of tests, keeping him overnight quite possibly.....tying up a bed. They ALL are not unvaxxed in there.

Pretty sure my symptoms were mediated by having been vaccinated and boosted, likely would have been worse without. Same for my wife and son.

My symptoms were uncomfortable but never remotely scary as to breathing etc, and no I don't think we'd have been at hospital if 80...tons of data on this now, not sure why anyone is still arguing.

Not arguing...being pragmatic. If you were in your 80's with your symptoms, and the diagnosis explained below....I suspect you may go to the hospital to get checked out, therefore taking up space as a vaxxed person on a covid floor.

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 1:46 pm

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 1:37 pm

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 1:30 pm

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 1:23 pm How is it unnecessary for a SICK person, so sick they have to be admitted, taking up hospitol beds ? Think about what you are thinking, here.

If they were vaccinated, they would have a much better chance at staying home with mild to no symptoms vs. having to go to the hospital.

Simple stuff to understand my man.

just like me, and over 100 million US residents. (remember the covid count, last year )

Same results....mild symptoms, no hospital visits.

Are you seriously denying that we were told, last year, that the vaccines would PREVENT, not reduce ? That is wrong. We were told that.

Tell us why we should take a shot that clearly doesn't prevent you from getting it, or prevent spreading it. Especially after already contracting the virus ? To only placate you and your "anger" ? Dude....focus your anger at the medical community, where it belongs.

LMAO you're immune to properly interpreting medical information. Wonder what kind of vaccination that took...

You don't understand how the vaccines work, and you demonstrate it time and time again. The vaccines are indeed preventing a lot of people from getting sick, and a lot of people from getting severely sick and taking up much needed hospital beds. That is a simple fact that has been proved many times over.

I'll let you go back to tilting at windmills in the ether Don.

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 9:48 pm
These people won't get the HPV for their daughters.

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Fri Feb 04, 2022 6:56 am Maybe he meant that’s what the cohort would like to give their daughters for their sweet 16th? The man at the top of the prior administration wishes he did before Jared.

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 9:48 pm

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 1:46 pm

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 1:37 pm

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 1:30 pm

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 1:23 pm How is it unnecessary for a SICK person, so sick they have to be admitted, taking up hospitol beds ? Think about what you are thinking, here.

If they were vaccinated, they would have a much better chance at staying home with mild to no symptoms vs. having to go to the hospital.

Simple stuff to understand my man.

just like me, and over 100 million US residents. (remember the covid count, last year )

Same results....mild symptoms, no hospital visits.

Are you seriously denying that we were told, last year, that the vaccines would PREVENT, not reduce ? That is wrong. We were told that.

Tell us why we should take a shot that clearly doesn't prevent you from getting it, or prevent spreading it. Especially after already contracting the virus ? To only placate you and your "anger" ? Dude....focus your anger at the medical community, where it belongs.

LMAO you're immune to properly interpreting medical information. Wonder what kind of vaccination that took...

You don't understand how the vaccines work, and you demonstrate it time and time again. The vaccines are indeed preventing a lot of people from getting sick, and a lot of people from getting severely sick and taking up much needed hospital beds. That is a simple fact that has been proved many times over.

I'll let you go back to tilting at windmills in the ether Don.

These people won't get the HPV for their daughters. They can't die off fast enough.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Feb 04, 2022 8:11 am

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 9:48 pm

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 1:46 pm

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 1:37 pm

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 1:30 pm

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 1:23 pm How is it unnecessary for a SICK person, so sick they have to be admitted, taking up hospitol beds ? Think about what you are thinking, here.

If they were vaccinated, they would have a much better chance at staying home with mild to no symptoms vs. having to go to the hospital.

Simple stuff to understand my man.

just like me, and over 100 million US residents. (remember the covid count, last year )

Same results....mild symptoms, no hospital visits.

Are you seriously denying that we were told, last year, that the vaccines would PREVENT, not reduce ? That is wrong. We were told that.

Tell us why we should take a shot that clearly doesn't prevent you from getting it, or prevent spreading it. Especially after already contracting the virus ? To only placate you and your "anger" ? Dude....focus your anger at the medical community, where it belongs.

LMAO you're immune to properly interpreting medical information. Wonder what kind of vaccination that took...

You don't understand how the vaccines work, and you demonstrate it time and time again. The vaccines are indeed preventing a lot of people from getting sick, and a lot of people from getting severely sick and taking up much needed hospital beds. That is a simple fact that has been proved many times over.

I'll let you go back to tilting at windmills in the ether Don.

These people won't get the HPV for their daughters. They can't die off fast enough.

Speaking of facts….

“A new study out of Johns Hopkins University is claiming that worldwide pandemic lockdowns only prevented 0.2 per cent of COVID-19 deaths and were “not an effective way of reducing mortality rates during a pandemic.”

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/joh ... -lockdowns

Interestingly, certain media outlets refuse to cover this study:

“CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo completely avoid Johns Hopkins study finding COVID lockdowns ineffective”

https://www.foxnews.com/media/johns-hop ... a-blackout


Maybe hysteria wasn’t and isn’t the best choice? I wouldn’t know since we’ve never worn masks or mandated vaccines. It seems worth some self reflection if we are arrogant in our Covid declarations? I don’t know.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Feb 04, 2022 8:11 am

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 9:48 pm

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 1:46 pm

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 1:37 pm

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 1:30 pm

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 1:23 pm How is it unnecessary for a SICK person, so sick they have to be admitted, taking up hospitol beds ? Think about what you are thinking, here.

If they were vaccinated, they would have a much better chance at staying home with mild to no symptoms vs. having to go to the hospital.

Simple stuff to understand my man.

just like me, and over 100 million US residents. (remember the covid count, last year )

Same results....mild symptoms, no hospital visits.

Are you seriously denying that we were told, last year, that the vaccines would PREVENT, not reduce ? That is wrong. We were told that.

Tell us why we should take a shot that clearly doesn't prevent you from getting it, or prevent spreading it. Especially after already contracting the virus ? To only placate you and your "anger" ? Dude....focus your anger at the medical community, where it belongs.

LMAO you're immune to properly interpreting medical information. Wonder what kind of vaccination that took...

You don't understand how the vaccines work, and you demonstrate it time and time again. The vaccines are indeed preventing a lot of people from getting sick, and a lot of people from getting severely sick and taking up much needed hospital beds. That is a simple fact that has been proved many times over.

I'll let you go back to tilting at windmills in the ether Don.

These people won't get the HPV for their daughters. They can't die off fast enough.

Speaking of facts….

“A new study out of Johns Hopkins University is claiming that worldwide pandemic lockdowns only prevented 0.2 per cent of COVID-19 deaths and were “not an effective way of reducing mortality rates during a pandemic.”

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/joh ... -lockdowns

Interestingly, certain media outlets refuse to cover this study:

“CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo completely avoid Johns Hopkins study finding COVID lockdowns ineffective”

https://www.foxnews.com/media/johns-hop ... a-blackout


Maybe hysteria wasn’t and isn’t the best choice? I wouldn’t know since we’ve never worn masks or mandated vaccines. It seems worth some self reflection if we are arrogant in our Covid declarations? I don’t know.

Bart wrote: ↑Fri Feb 04, 2022 8:31 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Feb 04, 2022 8:11 am

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 9:48 pm

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 1:46 pm

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 1:37 pm

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 1:30 pm

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 1:23 pm How is it unnecessary for a SICK person, so sick they have to be admitted, taking up hospitol beds ? Think about what you are thinking, here.

If they were vaccinated, they would have a much better chance at staying home with mild to no symptoms vs. having to go to the hospital.

Simple stuff to understand my man.

just like me, and over 100 million US residents. (remember the covid count, last year )

Same results....mild symptoms, no hospital visits.

Are you seriously denying that we were told, last year, that the vaccines would PREVENT, not reduce ? That is wrong. We were told that.

Tell us why we should take a shot that clearly doesn't prevent you from getting it, or prevent spreading it. Especially after already contracting the virus ? To only placate you and your "anger" ? Dude....focus your anger at the medical community, where it belongs.

LMAO you're immune to properly interpreting medical information. Wonder what kind of vaccination that took...

You don't understand how the vaccines work, and you demonstrate it time and time again. The vaccines are indeed preventing a lot of people from getting sick, and a lot of people from getting severely sick and taking up much needed hospital beds. That is a simple fact that has been proved many times over.

I'll let you go back to tilting at windmills in the ether Don.

These people won't get the HPV for their daughters. They can't die off fast enough.

Speaking of facts….

“A new study out of Johns Hopkins University is claiming that worldwide pandemic lockdowns only prevented 0.2 per cent of COVID-19 deaths and were “not an effective way of reducing mortality rates during a pandemic.”

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/joh ... -lockdowns

Interestingly, certain media outlets refuse to cover this study:

“CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo completely avoid Johns Hopkins study finding COVID lockdowns ineffective”

https://www.foxnews.com/media/johns-hop ... a-blackout


Maybe hysteria wasn’t and isn’t the best choice? I wouldn’t know since we’ve never worn masks or mandated vaccines. It seems worth some self reflection if we are arrogant in our Covid declarations? I don’t know.

Interesting. It is a meta analysis that is based on a couple of underpowered studies. That has varied opinions on the methodology.

Here is an interesting string from a person who obviously does not agree. This is not the only one I have read in this regard.

https://twitter.com/AndreasShrugged/sta ... 8915489794

Read his critique and make up your own mind.

Here a primer on the difference-in-differences methodology the author above is speaking about: https://diff.healthpolicydatascience.org/

Bart wrote: ↑Fri Feb 04, 2022 8:31 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Feb 04, 2022 8:11 am

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 9:48 pm

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 1:46 pm

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 1:37 pm

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 1:30 pm

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 1:23 pm How is it unnecessary for a SICK person, so sick they have to be admitted, taking up hospitol beds ? Think about what you are thinking, here.

If they were vaccinated, they would have a much better chance at staying home with mild to no symptoms vs. having to go to the hospital.

Simple stuff to understand my man.

just like me, and over 100 million US residents. (remember the covid count, last year )

Same results....mild symptoms, no hospital visits.

Are you seriously denying that we were told, last year, that the vaccines would PREVENT, not reduce ? That is wrong. We were told that.

Tell us why we should take a shot that clearly doesn't prevent you from getting it, or prevent spreading it. Especially after already contracting the virus ? To only placate you and your "anger" ? Dude....focus your anger at the medical community, where it belongs.

LMAO you're immune to properly interpreting medical information. Wonder what kind of vaccination that took...

You don't understand how the vaccines work, and you demonstrate it time and time again. The vaccines are indeed preventing a lot of people from getting sick, and a lot of people from getting severely sick and taking up much needed hospital beds. That is a simple fact that has been proved many times over.

I'll let you go back to tilting at windmills in the ether Don.

These people won't get the HPV for their daughters. They can't die off fast enough.

Speaking of facts….

“A new study out of Johns Hopkins University is claiming that worldwide pandemic lockdowns only prevented 0.2 per cent of COVID-19 deaths and were “not an effective way of reducing mortality rates during a pandemic.”

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/joh ... -lockdowns

Interestingly, certain media outlets refuse to cover this study:

“CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo completely avoid Johns Hopkins study finding COVID lockdowns ineffective”

https://www.foxnews.com/media/johns-hop ... a-blackout


Maybe hysteria wasn’t and isn’t the best choice? I wouldn’t know since we’ve never worn masks or mandated vaccines. It seems worth some self reflection if we are arrogant in our Covid declarations? I don’t know.

Interesting. It is a meta analysis that is based on a couple of underpowered studies. That has varied opinions on the methodology.

Here is an interesting string from a person who obviously does not agree. This is not the only one I have read in this regard.

https://twitter.com/AndreasShrugged/sta ... 8915489794

Read his critique and make up your own mind.

Here a primer on the difference-in-differences methodology the author above is speaking about: https://diff.healthpolicydatascience.org/

tech37 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 04, 2022 8:36 am

Bart wrote: ↑Fri Feb 04, 2022 8:31 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Feb 04, 2022 8:11 am

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 9:48 pm

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 1:46 pm

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 1:37 pm

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 1:30 pm

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 1:23 pm How is it unnecessary for a SICK person, so sick they have to be admitted, taking up hospitol beds ? Think about what you are thinking, here.

If they were vaccinated, they would have a much better chance at staying home with mild to no symptoms vs. having to go to the hospital.

Simple stuff to understand my man.

just like me, and over 100 million US residents. (remember the covid count, last year )

Same results....mild symptoms, no hospital visits.

Are you seriously denying that we were told, last year, that the vaccines would PREVENT, not reduce ? That is wrong. We were told that.

Tell us why we should take a shot that clearly doesn't prevent you from getting it, or prevent spreading it. Especially after already contracting the virus ? To only placate you and your "anger" ? Dude....focus your anger at the medical community, where it belongs.

LMAO you're immune to properly interpreting medical information. Wonder what kind of vaccination that took...

You don't understand how the vaccines work, and you demonstrate it time and time again. The vaccines are indeed preventing a lot of people from getting sick, and a lot of people from getting severely sick and taking up much needed hospital beds. That is a simple fact that has been proved many times over.

I'll let you go back to tilting at windmills in the ether Don.

These people won't get the HPV for their daughters. They can't die off fast enough.

Speaking of facts….

“A new study out of Johns Hopkins University is claiming that worldwide pandemic lockdowns only prevented 0.2 per cent of COVID-19 deaths and were “not an effective way of reducing mortality rates during a pandemic.”

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/joh ... -lockdowns

Interestingly, certain media outlets refuse to cover this study:

“CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo completely avoid Johns Hopkins study finding COVID lockdowns ineffective”

https://www.foxnews.com/media/johns-hop ... a-blackout


Maybe hysteria wasn’t and isn’t the best choice? I wouldn’t know since we’ve never worn masks or mandated vaccines. It seems worth some self reflection if we are arrogant in our Covid declarations? I don’t know.

Interesting. It is a meta analysis that is based on a couple of underpowered studies. That has varied opinions on the methodology.

Here is an interesting string from a person who obviously does not agree. This is not the only one I have read in this regard.

https://twitter.com/AndreasShrugged/sta ... 8915489794

Read his critique and make up your own mind.

Here a primer on the difference-in-differences methodology the author above is speaking about: https://diff.healthpolicydatascience.org/

Rogan should have this guy on... seriously.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 04, 2022 8:40 am Yup, throw out all the studies showing a positive effect of "lockdowns" (which they did) and only include mortality (not hospitalizations), and don't adjust at all for compliance with government interventions, whether mandates or 'advice', treat all government interventions as identical, and you're not going to find much correlated reduction.

Basically a worthless exercise, engineered to achieve the desired outcome.

One only needs to look at China's mortality to see the mortality effect of high compliance with mandates. Several other such examples. Compliance is what matters. Not simply a mandate.

What this all reveals is that if populations don't comply together in the effort, whether advice or mandates, government is ultimately powerless to stop the virus from killing a lot of people.

What we don't have, at least not in country with a government capable of actually measuring excess deaths, much less tracking COVID identified deaths, is a situation in which government took no actions.

We simply don't know, thank god, what the outcomes in deaths would have been had governments the world over simply said 'let'er rip'. Complicating even further is that had hospitals been completely overrun in such a situation, as certainly was likely, what the ripple effects would have been in potential full society breakdown.

On the other hand, we do know that where there was high compliance, mortality was drastically reduced.

Now, how to achieve high compliance is a quite different conversation.

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Fri Feb 04, 2022 8:49 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 04, 2022 8:40 am Yup, throw out all the studies showing a positive effect of "lockdowns" (which they did) and only include mortality (not hospitalizations), and don't adjust at all for compliance with government interventions, whether mandates or 'advice', treat all government interventions as identical, and you're not going to find much correlated reduction.

Basically a worthless exercise, engineered to achieve the desired outcome.

One only needs to look at China's mortality to see the mortality effect of high compliance with mandates. Several other such examples. Compliance is what matters. Not simply a mandate.

What this all reveals is that if populations don't comply together in the effort, whether advice or mandates, government is ultimately powerless to stop the virus from killing a lot of people.

What we don't have, at least not in country with a government capable of actually measuring excess deaths, much less tracking COVID identified deaths, is a situation in which government took no actions.

We simply don't know, thank god, what the outcomes in deaths would have been had governments the world over simply said 'let'er rip'. Complicating even further is that had hospitals been completely overrun in such a situation, as certainly was likely, what the ripple effects would have been in potential full society breakdown.

On the other hand, we do know that where there was high compliance, mortality was drastically reduced.

Now, how to achieve high compliance is a quite different conversation.

What little I read was silly I didn’t finish it. Basically government didn’t need to make mandates because people would have mitigated on their own. Didn’t need to lockdown, folks would have locked themselves in.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 04, 2022 8:46 am I's be interested in seeing this economist be in a serious discussion with a public health, infectious disease expert from his own institution or from Harvard, etc. That would indeed be interesting. I'd also like to see a behavioral science expert in that roundtable discussion...something akin to the discussions Charlie Rose used to host.
No reason why we can't have both. Options are good...

Civil, in-depth, not partisan.

Rogan's incapable of hosting such a discussion.
MILLIONS of people disagree with you.