Suddenly vaccine skepticism has gone mainstream.

Far left wing ESPN even!

SAGE STEELE COMPLAINS ABOUT ESPN’S VACCINATION MANDATE, CALLING IT ‘SICK’ AND ‘SCARY’​

A sports reporter from ESPN has gone on record saying she has gotten the vaccination shot for the coronavirus but only did so because she works “for a company that mandates it.”

ESPN’s Sage Steele stated in a recent interview that it’s not the vaccination she has a problem with; it’s “the mandate is what I really have an issue with.”

According to Yahoo Entertainment, Steele said she got a COVID-19 vaccination before the company’s mandated deadline, but she only did so because she wanted to keep her job. She revealed this information earlier this week on the latest episode of the Uncut With Jay Cutler podcast.

“I got my shot today. I didn’t want to do it, but I work for a company that mandates it, and I had until September 30th to get it done, or I’m out. I respect everyone’s decision, I really do, but to mandate it is sick and it’s scary to me in many ways. But, I have a job. A job that I love, and frankly, a job that I need, but again I love it. I just — I’m not surprised it got to this point, especially with Disney, I mean a global company like that,” she said.

The controversy surrounding the vaccinated versus the unvaccinated has led another ESPN reporter to sit out the upcoming football season. According to NBC News, fellow reporter Allison Williams stated several weeks ago that she wouldn’t be on the sidelines this football season due to her not getting the COVID-19 vaccination.
 
I really don't know if he realizes how close to the truth he is getting. He seems to blow it all off as funny mistakes.

 
Robert said:
Shame for the Kiwis. They seemed to be doing so well not that long ago.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1444920391487606784
Click to expand...
no need for apologies. Their method had worked great

Until recently, that elimination strategy had worked remarkably well for the country of 5 million, which has reported just 27 virus deaths.

While other nations faced rising death tolls and disrupted lives, New Zealanders went back to workplaces, school yards and sports stadiums safe from any community spread.
Click to expand...

“For this outbreak, it’s clear that long periods of heavy restrictions has not got us to zero cases,” Ardern said. “But that is OK. Elimination was important because we didn’t have vaccines. Now we do, so we can begin to change the way we do things.”
Click to expand...

in comparison:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1444924741156884489
 
Only stupid people don't see the problem here.

244644646_10168232050150354_1940497776902385257_n.jpg
 
cecilia said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1445566038855217158
Click to expand...
I know in Vancouver, from talking with people involved with the local cdc and people that work with the homeless, during the original strain days there was no known transmission among the homeless and people were expecting it and actively looking for it. This has been similarly seen in other urban areas. It could be that the homeless get more sun, they definitely get more fresh air. When they do congregate it's mostly outdoors - for obvious reasons.
I don't know what the situation is right now with Delta but it seemed that the homeless was a population that it did not spread in. (NB This was a long time before there were vaccines and the virus was ravaging our old folks homes)
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
It could be that the homeless get more sun, they definitely get more fresh air. When they do congregate it's mostly outdoors - for obvious reasons.
Click to expand...
Well, those may be factors and they make some sense.
I also think that because the homeless tend to be loners, they aren't exposing themselves to the people who are infected. And, from my scant observations, most people tend to avoid anyone they consider homeless.
Obviously, this is a giant guess on my part. I have zero evidence.
 
This is a decent read:

No, your antibodies are not better than vaccination: An explainer​

Infection does offer some immune protection—but it's unreliable compared with vaccines.​

Example snippet:
One of the most concerning side effects is myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle). But even there, the rate of myocarditis in the most at-risk group (males ages 12 to 29) is only estimated to be 41 in a million, and the cases are generally mild.

Comparing that with actual COVID-19 infections—which can cause severe disease even in young, healthy people and may cause persistent, months-long symptoms in up to half of people infected—there's no contest. Vaccines are safer. And they're just as safe for people who have previously recovered. People with past COVID-19 cases are no more likely to have serious side effects from vaccines than people who haven't been previously infected, though they may have more side effects.
Click to expand...
 
Robert said:
This is a decent read:

No, your antibodies are not better than vaccination: An explainer​

Infection does offer some immune protection—but it's unreliable compared with vaccines.​

Example snippet:
Click to expand...
I'm still baffled by the thinking here. The immune response is what makes the vaccine work. If the immune response can't build immunity then vaccines can't work. If you are inoculated with the genuine live virus (i.e. infected) or with a simulacrum, you get an immune response that trains your body to fight what it got inoculated against. The same system that has evolved for half a billion years or so produces the actual immunity in either case - not the vaccine nor the virus.
The science remains far from settled on this. Here's the ever sober Dr John Campbell

I think a lot of what's going on is "the noble lie" - it's hard to determine who has been infected and is immune, partly because a large number of people may have had a very mild infection, and partly because some people who got a flu may just think they had covid, but it's easier to track who got a vaccine - so vaccines make easier public health policy so whatever you need to say to sell that solution is an ethical good even if you have to dissemble to do it. But it destroys trust.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
I'm still baffled by the thinking here. The immune response is what makes the vaccine work. If the immune response can't build immunity then vaccines can't work. If you are inoculated with the genuine live virus (i.e. infected) or with a simulacrum, you get an immune response that trains your body to fight what it got inoculated against. The same system that has evolved for half a billion years or so produces the actual immunity in either case - not the vaccine nor the virus.
The science remains far from settled on this. Here's the ever sober Dr John Campbell
Click to expand...

As I understand it, (and I may not understand it perfectly) the body's immune response to building antibodies is the equivalent of a brute force attack against a hash. There's more than one possible solution. There's more than one way to make an antibody. All the body has to do is keep trying combinations until it comes with one that works.

You can't control which exact strain of CoV you get. So your body might have come up with something that only works in very limited cases.

By deliberately using a (dead) generic variant of the virus (as J&J did) in their vaccine, it gives the body a better chance to hit on a more generic antibody that will work on other strains.

And with the mRNA vaccines, by causing only the most common part of the virus to be formed inside the body, the chances of the body building an even more generic antibody are even greater. Which is why the Pfizer and Moderna are even more effective against other strains.

How that all works out in reality, outside a laboratory, may still be up for discussion, though. It's a good discussion to have. I just don't think politics needs to be in it.
 
ilwrath said:
As I understand it, (and I may not understand it perfectly) the body's immune response to building antibodies is the equivalent of a brute force attack against a hash. There's more than one possible solution. There's more than one way to make an antibody. All the body has to do is keep trying combinations until it comes with one that works.
Click to expand...
That's roughly how I read it too. From the article I linked:
A fundamental difference between the immune responses generated by vaccines and natural infection is their specificity. In a natural infection, whole SARS-CoV-2 viruses infect cells in the respiratory tract. Responding immune cells can target any number of facets of those whole viruses. This creates a relatively large diversity of antibodies that bind to different bits of SARS-CoV-2. The vaccines, meanwhile, only offer to the immune system key snippets of SARS-CoV-2—namely the virus's spike protein. This is the protein that SARS-CoV-2 uses to enter human cells, and it's a key target of neutralizing antibodies. All antibodies in vaccinated people will target the spike protein. Though vaccinated people have less antibody diversity than previously infected people, they have high levels of highly targeted antibodies.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top