Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan (Post 1980149)

That is meaningless.

The virus is not making a decision about who it will attack/infect. It is opportunistic. Race plays a part in whether a person has to go to work in close proximity to others. The race has a part in determining who can get off work to go get a vaccination. Race plays a part, the virus simply infects whoever happens to be vulnerable when the virus happens to be there.

I hope this is what you meant because your post seems to imply something else. If I misunderstood your intent, I appologize.

Originally Posted by Patriceunger (Post 1980150)

So how many non FDA approved vaccines are people expected to go for as part of the ongoing clinical studies where the efficiencies and long term effects are unknown?

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 1980156)

I was just responding to the post that felt it was amazing how "race" has been introduced into this discussion by so many. I was agreeing with him. Now if the discussion was that race and/or socioeconomic status plays a role in vaccination percentages, that is different

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 1980156)

I was just responding to the post that felt it was amazing how "race" has been introduced into this discussion by so many. I was agreeing with him. Now if the discussion was that race and/or socioeconomic status plays a role in vaccination percentages, that is different

Originally Posted by Bucco (Post 1980160)

There are MANY on here who will find a way to discuss skin color on here as often as possible.

In my experience, the color of your skin does not alter or drive your actions in and of itself, however behavior is certainly affected by the culture in which you live. Instead of the constant generalizations, perhaps a recognition of that FACT would help.

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan (Post 1980164)

True, but that is harder to convert to a dog whistle.

Originally Posted by Patriceunger (Post 1980150)

So how many non FDA approved vaccines are people expected to go for as part of the ongoing clinical studies where the efficiencies and long term effects are unknown?

Originally Posted by Byte1 (Post 1980174)

Masks are NOT going to make the virus go away. I have no intention of wearing a mask in public the rest of my life. I tried to be reasonable about wearing them BEFORE the vaccination, but not any more. I am not interested in protecting those that refuse to be vaccinated. I would expect no more from you all if I did not wish vaccination. I do not get the flu shot and have never had the flu, but I would not blame you if or when I do ever catch the flu.. It is my responsibility, not anyone else's. Do not force me to wear a mask when I cannot catch the virus or transmit it. If I knew that I was going to have to wear a mask the rest of my life, I would never have gotten vaccinated. We are sending a great message to folks by telling them that they will still have to wear a mask after getting vaccinated to protect them from infection.
Common sense anyone?

Originally Posted by graciegirl (Post 1980175)

It seemed pretty clear to me and I am not a medical person. I had the choice to take a chance on the vaccine offered to me or take a chance on pretty bad odds of dying if I caught it, due to my age. At my age, roughly one in ten were dying of Covid-19.

Since I am 81 I wasn't at all worried about the long term effects of the vaccine.

I may have viewed it far differently had I been of child bearing age.

I am grateful for the Moderna that my husband and I took and the Pfizer that our Helene took and the fact that our grandchildren and daughter and son in law were also vaccinated.

At no time was I FEARful. I had the choice to self isolate and I had some boon companions. I also had plenty of things to do to occupy my mind and to enjoy. I must admit I was so happy when the news came that we could get the vaccine.

Sometimes we have to decide to trust others. I see NO reason by the Center for Disease Control would have an agenda to harm us. Dr. Fauci is well known and respected in his field and has served under both parties and respected by both until this one.

I did a little reading and the initial person chosen as director of National Public Health was criticized during the pandemic in the early 1900's for sounding the alarm that ships were coming into San Francisco with dead people aboard and he said that something new was killing these people. He was the recipient of many scathing attacks from those in power in Washington D.C. at the time.

I will try to find that article again.

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan (Post 1980178)

I really love your posts - so sensible.

This one reminded me of the old adage, "The more things change, the more they stay the same"...

It's not just pandemics - google "The Mexican Repatriation" in 1930s. Amazing how similar (actually in some ways worse) to today.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 1980138)

"As the Associated Press notes, Walensky cited data from the last few days, still unpublished, taken from 100 samples from vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals with COVID infections. They found that the amount of virus in the noses and throats of vaccinated infected people was nearly "indistinguishable" from what was found in unvaccinated people, confirming what some experts have suspected."

Full reference:

CDC Confirms That Viral Loads In Vaccinated People With Delta May Be Infectious, So Masks Are Necessary

Originally Posted by Patriceunger (Post 1980150)

So how many non FDA approved vaccines are people expected to go for as part of the ongoing clinical studies where the efficiencies and long term effects are unknown?

Originally Posted by graciegirl (Post 1980179)

Thank you.

I found this article while looking for the one on Dr. Kinyoun.

San Francisco plague of 1900–1904 - Wikipedia

Originally Posted by LiverpoolWalrus (Post 1980181)

That said, let's ignore the fact that the Delta variant is much more contagious for a moment. If the more subtle variants can be transmitted by droplets in the UNvaccinated's respiratory system, why shouldn't droplets in the vaccinated be just as prone to transmission, contrary to what the CDC and WHO has said?

And if they are indeed equally transmissible, that would explain why a much more contagious variant (Delta) is wreaking such havoc.

Originally Posted by graciegirl (Post 1980179)

Thank you.

I found this article while looking for the one on Dr. Kinyoun.

San Francisco plague of 1900–1904 - Wikipedia

Originally Posted by blueash (Post 1979991)

Scientific literacy it useful if you are going to cite something.. Please look again at the chart which led you to conclude that "the majority of unvaccinated are in the black population"

The chart the OP posted reports that 36% of Black folks have received at least one dose, thus 64% have not. As they represent 12% of the US population, per the same KFF report, that means that unvaccinated Blacks are 7.6% of the US population. 41% of whites have not received any shots. Whites are 61% of the US population.

Do the math. Unvaccinated whites are 25% of the US population. Now tell me again how "the majority of the unvaccinated are in the black population." The title of this thread is Who are the Naughty antivaxxer refusenicks?

Using the KFF data and a population of 333 million in the US there are about 83 million unvaccinated whites and 25 million unvaccinated Blacks. Keep in mind that the KFF data is NOT age adjusted. They simply looked at total numbers. As it is well known that the average age of both Black and Hispanic Americans is lower than whites because of life expectancy and birth rates, it is worth adding that far fewer people of color have qualified to be vaccinated.

The median age for whites per Pew analysis of census data in 2018 was 44. The median is the age where half the people are older and half younger. The median for Blacks is 34 and Hispanics is 30. Far more whites have been eligible for vaccination for longer periods as the age criteria have liberalized.

Again, I will point out that the best predictor of being a naughty refusenik is not ethnicity.

Originally Posted by LiverpoolWalrus (Post 1980181)

This is puzzling. Is there any reason to believe that nasal viral load in the vaccinated versus the unvaccinated should be different regardless of Covid variant - whether it's the original, alpha, South African, etc.?

The nostrils and throat are the point of entry before the vaccine works its magic. But the vaccine shouldn't have any effect on the initial exposure load, or does it? I don't believe the vaccines have the ability to kill the virus on initial contact, but maybe I'm wrong.

That said, let's ignore the fact that the Delta variant is much more contagious for a moment. If the more subtle variants can be transmitted by droplets in the UNvaccinated's respiratory system, why shouldn't droplets in the vaccinated be just as prone to transmission, contrary to what the CDC and WHO has said?

And if they are indeed equally transmissible, that would explain why a much more contagious variant (Delta) is wreaking such havoc.

Originally Posted by John41 (Post 1980192)

Statistics error on your part. You adjust blacks percentage unvaccinated by their percent of population but your poll doesn’t adjust for the fact that Republicans are only 25% of the adult population. Also your poll fails to mention how it deals with the bias of non response a lesson Hillary Clinton learned in 2016. But your real motive in this “poll” was to slip a political statement past the moderators.

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 1979970)

Any evidence to back this statement up? Both the JHU and WaPo Covid trackers seem to show that a whole lot of people are getting positive test results and a lot of people are being hospitalized but very few additional people are dying.




A statement currently without any evidence to back it up. Might be true but as others have pointed out, might be a negligible number.

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive (Post 1979564)

There is fear, and then there is fear.

I read a story the day before yesterday, that the University of Wisconsin system is offering $7,000 scholarships to University students who have so far not gotten vaccinated.

If this bug is a thing to be so feared--why do supposedly intelligent people need such a large financial bribe to get it? Seems to me that if all those the-sky-is-falling stories were true, that people would be beating down the doors of clinics just to get their shots.

Instead, we have bribes.

Any good reason for this?

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan (Post 1979717)

Being educated does not provide immunity to misinformation about subjects you are not educated in.

Originally Posted by ROCKMUP (Post 1980049)

Some of us choose to not be a lab rat for the largest social experiment ever done.

I mean, its not like our own government would ever perform any experiments on its own citizens. Would it ?
I can think of at least 6 times since the mid 1800's.

Funny (not ha, ha) how judgmental and arrogant people are. I don't care if you wear a mask and I don't care if you get vaccinated. You do you.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 1980267)

Misinformation ........begets propaganda........begets dictatorship!

Originally Posted by blueash (Post 1979991)

Scientific literacy it useful if you are going to cite something.. Please look again at the chart which led you to conclude that "the majority of unvaccinated are in the black population"

The chart the OP posted reports that 36% of Black folks have received at least one dose, thus 64% have not. As they represent 12% of the US population, per the same KFF report, that means that unvaccinated Blacks are 7.6% of the US population. 41% of whites have not received any shots. Whites are 61% of the US population.

Do the math. Unvaccinated whites are 25% of the US population. Now tell me again how "the majority of the unvaccinated are in the black population." The title of this thread is Who are the Naughty antivaxxer refusenicks?

Using the KFF data and a population of 333 million in the US there are about 83 million unvaccinated whites and 25 million unvaccinated Blacks. Keep in mind that the KFF data is NOT age adjusted. They simply looked at total numbers. As it is well known that the average age of both Black and Hispanic Americans is lower than whites because of life expectancy and birth rates, it is worth adding that far fewer people of color have qualified to be vaccinated.

The median age for whites per Pew analysis of census data in 2018 was 44. The median is the age where half the people are older and half younger. The median for Blacks is 34 and Hispanics is 30. Far more whites have been eligible for vaccination for longer periods as the age criteria have liberalized.

Again, I will point out that the best predictor of being a naughty refusenik is not ethnicity.

Originally Posted by blueash (Post 1980222)

You are wrong. There is no adjustment for political party in any racial or ethnic group. Read what I wrote again, and do the math yourself. I made absolutely zero comment about the political party of the vaccine refusers in the post you quoted. If you are interested in how political party alters vaccine acceptance, there is data available. I did link to a report examining vaccine refusers. It is not "my poll", it is not a poll at all. "An ongoing research project tracking the public’s attitudes and experiences with COVID-19 vaccinations."

For further edification, if you are interested and capable, I'd recommend reading another report from KFF.

It examines the attitude and reasons of those who have not been vaccinated. An important, very important, variable examined is people who report they are hesitant awaiting more information [these are people who have been waiting but eventually mostly getting shots] vs those who refuse and have no intention of getting a shot no matter what. Data is available. Interpretation is not difficult.

Originally Posted by drstevens (Post 1980086)

As a scientist, I extensively studied the pros and cons of receiving the "experimental" vaccine. I discovered the pharmaceuticals have received immunity from liability, conflicting animal trials where many animals died after several months, the side-effects were more prevalent than all previous vaccines, and the media and medical profession essentially ignoring the benefits of natural immunity. Also, the blatant obfuscation of any treatment other than the vaccines i.e. benefits of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.
OUR STORY (condensed): My wife and I were exposed to covid19 on January 26 and both tested positive. I had a runny nose and a two-hour fever of 100.4. I feel fine and still have the antibodies after six months.
My wife had a cough for two-days and was lethargic. She still tested positive for covid19 after five months. Last month she took the five day treatment of hydroxychloroquine with zinc and now no longer tests positive for covid19 and has her energy back.
OUR RESEARCH (condensed): Tons of research is available pro-vaccine, not so much for anti-vaccine, with many sites blocked. Several sources we found were Media – Americas Frontline Doctors, The COVID Blog - Official blog of COVID Legal USA. Vaccines are the leading cause of coincidences. Stay Vigilant., and the confusing government adverse effects reporting website The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) Request. I have lost the source, but about 40% of employees at three government health agencies (including Fauchi's) have supposedly refused to get the vaccine.
CONCLUSION: We will never take any vaccine or drug that is experimental, especially where the mfg. is immune from liability AND THE LONG TERM SIDE-EFFECTS ARE UNKNOWN. Also, we both have the antibodies and test negative for covid19. My doctor has told me not to consider the vaccine as long as I have the antibodies and am on chemo for multiple myeloma. I do not wish to get in to a long diatribe about the vaccine, but do your own research, be informed and educated and make the best decision for you and your family. Ignore those who try to build themselves up by tearing others down who do not agree with them.
I hope you found this helpful. Good luck and stay heathy!

Originally Posted by drstevens (Post 1980086)

As a scientist, I extensively studied the pros and cons of receiving the "experimental" vaccine. I discovered the pharmaceuticals have received immunity from liability, conflicting animal trials where many animals died after several months, the side-effects were more prevalent than all previous vaccines, and the media and medical profession essentially ignoring the benefits of natural immunity. Also, the blatant obfuscation of any treatment other than the vaccines i.e. benefits of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.
OUR STORY (condensed): My wife and I were exposed to covid19 on January 26 and both tested positive. I had a runny nose and a two-hour fever of 100.4. I feel fine and still have the antibodies after six months.
My wife had a cough for two-days and was lethargic. She still tested positive for covid19 after five months. Last month she took the five day treatment of hydroxychloroquine with zinc and now no longer tests positive for covid19 and has her energy back.
OUR RESEARCH (condensed): Tons of research is available pro-vaccine, not so much for anti-vaccine, with many sites blocked. Several sources we found were Media – Americas Frontline Doctors, The COVID Blog - Official blog of COVID Legal USA. Vaccines are the leading cause of coincidences. Stay Vigilant., and the confusing government adverse effects reporting website The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) Request. I have lost the source, but about 40% of employees at three government health agencies (including Fauchi's) have supposedly refused to get the vaccine.
CONCLUSION: We will never take any vaccine or drug that is experimental, especially where the mfg. is immune from liability AND THE LONG TERM SIDE-EFFECTS ARE UNKNOWN. Also, we both have the antibodies and test negative for covid19. My doctor has told me not to consider the vaccine as long as I have the antibodies and am on chemo for multiple myeloma. I do not wish to get in to a long diatribe about the vaccine, but do your own research, be informed and educated and make the best decision for you and your family. Ignore those who try to build themselves up by tearing others down who do not agree with them.
I hope you found this helpful. Good luck and stay heathy!

Originally Posted by Proveone (Post 1979945)

Your chart is one source and the percentages are very close. Lower socioeconomic populations have less access to medical care/vaccine. The problem with Covid 19 is not how or where it started but rather the poor/incompletent reponse by the previous US administration. We were warned about the possibility of a pandemic years ago.

Originally Posted by billethkid (Post 1979530)

We are witnessing the re-introduction of the fear factor.
With covid on the decline the decision makers were facing a lack of leverage....fear!

Walenski is the new Fauci flip flopper!

Originally Posted by jbartle1 (Post 1980282)

Pleeeease, the virus has changed, hence, science direction also changes.

Originally Posted by graciegirl (Post 1979877)

Have you had the shot?

I don't know how history will look at it, but this is a scary virus and it could continue to mutate unless we get it stopped. History may not have folks to record this nasty possibility.

Originally Posted by lkagele (Post 1980284)

Yes, I've had the shots. I'm in the age bracket that is most at risk. I don't, however, get upset of younger folks refusing the vaccination. It's a 'my body, my choice' type of thing and I don't believe the unvaccinated pose a great risk to me.

No one around to record this history? A little alarmist, don't you think? And, the vaccine isn't going to stop this virus. It's becoming more and more apparent that the vaccinated continue to contract the disease. Thankfully, in most of those cases, the symptoms are minor. I suspect this virus is going to out live all of us here in TV.

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 1979569)

It will be interesting to see the particular study that found vaccinated individuals with high viral loads and what the frequency of "rare cases" really is. Some of this might be grasping at straws to find justification for a desired action.

People are getting sick and hospitals are filling - something needs to be done. It is the unvaccinated that are filling the hospitals so it appears vaccinations would solve the problem. Masking of the unvaccinated might also solve the problem, or at least slow it, but the past two months have shown that the unvaccinated won't wear masks if the vaccinated aren't wearing masks. You can tell the vaccinated they really, really need to wear masks and get vaccinated, but the past several months have shown that won't happen. So what can you do?

(Apologizing for the phrase, but ...) Why not kill two birds with one stone. If the unvaccinated won't wear masks when the vaccinated don't and if it's that important to get the masks on then force the vaccinated to wear masks too. "Because we said so" only goes so far but if you can show that the vaccinated can transmit the virus too then you have a reason to force it. Conveniently, along comes a report that shows high viral loads of Delta in vaccinated individuals.

But, "two birds?" Yes. The real answer is to get the unvaccinated to take the shot and stop spreading, stop filling hospitals, and stop dying. Carrots have already been tried with little effect so bring on the sticks. 186M vaccinated folks who have to go back to masking because of the unvaccinated may be able to provide a bit more "encouragement." And, if that doesn't work, you could also determine that vaccine mandates are legal, even before full FDA approval, and start rolling those out as well.

Part of the role of the CDC is to provide recommendations on how to stop this pandemic. They will try understand the virus and recommend ways to attack it, but they can also try to understand human nature and recommend approaches to improve the odds of success. It will be interesting to see the particular study that this latest approach was based on.

Originally Posted by lkagele (Post 1980284)

Yes, I've had the shots. I'm in the age bracket that is most at risk. I don't, however, get upset of younger folks refusing the vaccination. It's a 'my body, my choice' type of thing and I don't believe the unvaccinated pose a great risk to me.

No one around to record this history? A little alarmist, don't you think? And, the vaccine isn't going to stop this virus. It's becoming more and more apparent that the vaccinated continue to contract the disease. Thankfully, in most of those cases, the symptoms are minor. I suspect this virus is going to out live all of us here in TV.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 1980104)

First of all, very sorry to hear you have MM, but that is really the reason to avoid the vaccine in your case, especially actively receiving chemo. The "antibodies" you have are really not the sine qua non of COVID immunity. It turns out there are multiple antibodies involved, and we simply don't have a good test to determine which ones confer immunity (yet).

There should be no problem finding "anti-vaccine" web sites---just google conspiracy theories, so despite your user name, I have to question whether you are a medical doctor or just happen to have 1st and middle initials of "d" and "r"

Lastly, I am always skeptical of any post that advises people to "do their own research" Most people don't have the background in science or medicine to understand the literature nor make a reasonable conclusion. That's why we have EXPERTS to evaluate the data and advise the decision makers and inform the public. We can't have millions of "Dr. Googles" out there making their own decisions based on their "own research"

And as far as some of the treatments you mentioned, they are basically unproven. And even if they have some utility, they are after the fact treatments for active COVID. Much better to prevent it in the first place. It's pretty amazing that anti-vaxxers like to state the vaccine isn't "FDA" approved, even though it has emergency approval in this emergency, yet point to a whole array of alternative "treatments" that will never have FDA approval.

Originally Posted by Byte1 (Post 1980174)

Masks are NOT going to make the virus go away. I have no intention of wearing a mask in public the rest of my life. I tried to be reasonable about wearing them BEFORE the vaccination, but not any more. I am not interested in protecting those that refuse to be vaccinated. I would expect no more from you all if I did not wish vaccination. I do not get the flu shot and have never had the flu, but I would not blame you if or when I do ever catch the flu.. It is my responsibility, not anyone else's. Do not force me to wear a mask when I cannot catch the virus or transmit it. If I knew that I was going to have to wear a mask the rest of my life, I would never have gotten vaccinated. We are sending a great message to folks by telling them that they will still have to wear a mask after getting vaccinated to protect them from infection.
Common sense anyone?