• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Vaccine Poll

Will you take Covid vaccine shot(s)

  • I will not

    Votes: 255 50.7%
  • I would not but must in order to work - or other requirement

    Votes: 41 8.2%
  • I will of my own volition

    Votes: 185 36.8%
  • I will AND it is required of me for work - or other reason

    Votes: 22 4.4%

  • Total voters
    503

SpaceCritter

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
19,105
Likes
17,662
Location
In Orbit
The definition of herd immunity has not changed. One bit of information your quotes miss is that the percentage of the population requiring immunity or antibodies has always varied depending on the disease, based on how infectious it is. For some diseases, natural herd immunity from exposure is fine, since it isn't very infectious and not many people will be required to have it. For Covid-19, it is believed that 60% or more of the population will require immunity. The consequences of having 200 million people naturally infected with Covid-19 were deemed severe enough that most people don't _want_ to see herd immunity achieved through natural infection, only through vaccination. You could still get there naturally, it just wouldn't be good.
That would depend on that perennially-missing "denominator" in the calculations (i.e. the true "how many of us actually had it" even if we didn't know it - again, customer's son is FDNY and he, and the better part of his company, tested positive back in the spring, and the most he can remember having had is a slight headache). And this is a coronavirus and antibodies (as opposed to T-cells) are not likely to play a big role in immunity.
 

Climbnsink

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
7,080
Likes
6,945
The definition of herd immunity has not changed. One bit of information your quotes miss is that the percentage of the population requiring immunity or antibodies has always varied depending on the disease, based on how infectious it is. For some diseases, natural herd immunity from exposure is fine, since it isn't very infectious and not many people will be required to have it. For Covid-19, it is believed that 60% or more of the population will require immunity. The consequences of having 200 million people naturally infected with Covid-19 were deemed severe enough that most people don't _want_ to see herd immunity achieved through natural infection, only through vaccination. You could still get there naturally, it just wouldn't be good.
Pfizer control group 20,000 people 169 gots the 'rona 1 hospitalization. I think we can handle it. Oh wait 'rona has been in the states since the fall, so yes we can definitely handle it. Lockdowns are warfare against America by elected mercenaries.
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
145
Likes
87
Location
Newton, MA
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
145
Likes
87
Location
Newton, MA
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
145
Likes
87
Location
Newton, MA
That would depend on that perennially-missing "denominator" in the calculations (i.e. the true "how many of us actually had it" even if we didn't know it - again, customer's son is FDNY and he, and the better part of his company, tested positive back in the spring, and the most he can remember having had is a slight headache). And this is a coronavirus and antibodies (as opposed to T-cells) are not likely to play a big role in immunity.
The required % population for herd immunity is based on the transmissibility of the disease, not on how many have had it. How many have had it may affect how close you've gotten to the herd immunity % if people retain an immunity for some period of time.
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
145
Likes
87
Location
Newton, MA
Pfizer control group 20,000 people 169 gots the 'rona 1 hospitalization. I think we can handle it. Oh wait 'rona has been in the states since the fall, so yes we can definitely handle it. Lockdowns are warfare against America by elected mercenaries.
Our hospitals have not been handling it well with a far fewer number of cases, based on friends who work in them, so I'm not sure about definitely handling it unless they are spread much farther apart in time. Quarantines and lockdowns have been used for a century, not a new thing.
 

SpaceCritter

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
19,105
Likes
17,662
Location
In Orbit
Our hospitals have not been handling it well with a far fewer number of cases, based on friends who work in them, so I'm not sure about definitely handling it unless they are spread much farther apart in time. Quarantines and lockdowns have been used for a century, not a new thing.
Not like this they haven't.
 

Climbnsink

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
7,080
Likes
6,945
Our hospitals have not been handling it well with a far fewer number of cases, based on friends who work in them, so I'm not sure about definitely handling it unless they are spread much farther apart in time. Quarantines and lockdowns have been used for a century, not a new thing.
Yeah quarantining the at risk. This is the first time giving it to everyone. Except the teenagers and senior citizens who work in grocery stores. Why aren't they all dead? Why aren't they first on the list for the vaccine?
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
26,661
Likes
4,939
Sure you won’t comply, much like this man “didn’t comply” to get blood drawn for a dui. If the govt wants, it will vaccinate the masses, and you will have zero rebuttal.
I doubt they have enough to do even all those who want it. Even if they do, I'm doubtful about their ability to distribute it.


People rightfully should be calling her and her family out for their hypocrisy.
Her OWN FAMILY should be calling her out, if they were THAT HURT by her actions!
 

HuntMaine

NES Member
Rating - 100%
15   0   0
Joined
Apr 6, 2009
Messages
6,052
Likes
3,244
Location
2A Supporter
I doubt they have enough to do even all those who want it. Even if they do, I'm doubtful about their ability to distribute it.



Her OWN FAMILY should be calling her out, if they were THAT HURT by her actions!
They will force a lot through schools, then nursing homes, the a requirement to visit homes, then your employer and that leaves a smaller number to start to go after. Maybe they would hold back wages or tax more. No idea. I put nothing beyond Baker he’s like a Cuomo. Wait until after New Years and a spike, he will go for full shutdown. Meanwhile I’ll be off to a state we’re they are fully open to enjoy freedom for a few weeks
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
26,661
Likes
4,939
Why would the NIH, FDA and CDC not acknowledge a plethora of clinical trials when all of them reach the same conclusion -- it works? Simple -- it is illegal to issue an EUA for a drug if there is a safe and effective alternative; such an application has to go through regular order and procedure. To get the vaccine EUA the government had to ignore the evidence of effectiveness and that willful and intentional action is directly resposnible for over 150,000 deaths.
You guys and your acronyms.

EUA?

End User Analysis?



Couple questions:
  • If someone gets the vaccine, are they now exempt from distance and mask mandates?
  • If someone has already tested positive for covid19, do they still need a vaccine?

These all go together:
  • What are the various groupings they have designated, in order, to get the vaccine?
  • How many are in each group?
  • How many vaccines have been ordered for those groups?
  • How many have been delivered?
  • If not all have been delivered, are they on order, or back-order?
  • What about the "general public"?
  • Have THOSE vaccines been ordered or delivered yet?
  • Long story short, IS THERE A PLAN?

One to add:
  • Will EITHER vaccine work on either of the two NEW variants/mutations currently in England?
 

Climbnsink

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
7,080
Likes
6,945
You guys and your acronyms.

EUA?

End User Analysis?





One to add:
  • Will EITHER vaccine work on either of the two NEW variants/mutations currently in England?
Emergency Use Authorization Like if the FDA approved bathtub meth for ADHD because the Ritalin factory exploded. Whether or not the vaccine will work on the new variants is not relevant because they are going to use the story of a new variant to punish us all vaxxed or not.
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
145
Likes
87
Location
Newton, MA
Not like this they haven't.
Interesting question. There were certainly lockdowns, quarantines, and mask mandates in the pandemic a century ago. But people were far less mobile back then, and they probably didn't affect people as much, while simultaneously being more effective. 3 million people got on planes in the last 3 days that make a huge potential spread unimaginable back then, when people probably generally stayed within a few miles of their homes for the most part. So you probably need tighter restrictions to have the same effect.

Know where you don't have as tight restrictions right now? Wuhan, China. They were far more restrictive, but eliminated the virus with a severe 4+ week lockdown. I know an expat there, not in Wuhan proper but in Hubei province. He kept saying, "Why are you guys all upset, it's just a few more weeks until you're out." But we half-assed it compared to them, and didn't have nearly as effective a response.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
26,661
Likes
4,939
Interesting question. There were certainly 1 ) lockdowns, quarantines, and mask mandates in the pandemic a century ago. But people were far less mobile back then, and they probably didn't affect people as much, while simultaneously being more effective. 3 million people got on planes in the last 3 days that make a huge potential spread unimaginable back then, when people probably generally stayed within a few miles of their homes for the most part. So you probably need tighter restrictions to have the same effect.

2 ) Know where you don't have as tight restrictions right now? Wuhan, China. They were far more restrictive, but eliminated the virus with a severe 4+ week lockdown. I know an expat there, not in Wuhan proper but in Hubei province. He kept saying, "Why are you guys all upset, it's just a few more weeks until you're out." But we half-assed it compared to them, and didn't have nearly as effective a response.
1) They also did not have the means to communicate we have now.
2) Weren't a lot of people either killed by the virus or the government, or both? Wasn't this where they got welded into their apartments; or carried away, never to be heard from again?
 

Climbnsink

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
7,080
Likes
6,945
Interesting question. There were certainly lockdowns, quarantines, and mask mandates in the pandemic a century ago. But people were far less mobile back then, and they probably didn't affect people as much, while simultaneously being more effective. 3 million people got on planes in the last 3 days that make a huge potential spread unimaginable back then, when people probably generally stayed within a few miles of their homes for the most part. So you probably need tighter restrictions to have the same effect.

Know where you don't have as tight restrictions right now? Wuhan, China. They were far more restrictive, but eliminated the virus with a severe 4+ week lockdown. I know an expat there, not in Wuhan proper but in Hubei province. He kept saying, "Why are you guys all upset, it's just a few more weeks until you're out." But we half-assed it compared to them, and didn't have nearly as effective a response.
Think about what you wrote. People travel more than ever, Wuhan is now open and free. Hmmm. If people still travel to and from Wuhan. Then the only thing that makes sense is Wuhan being the origin of a hoax, otherwise their now unrestricted city would be reinfected by a traveling Swede.
 

AJK129

NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Aug 5, 2019
Messages
2,547
Likes
5,624
Think about what you wrote. People travel more than ever, Wuhan is now open and free. Hmmm. If people still travel to and from Wuhan. Then the only thing that makes sense is Wuhan being the origin of a hoax, otherwise their now unrestricted city would be reinfected by a traveling Swede.

Got into an argument at work about this. They started saying its because China has more discipline than us to follow lock down rules. [banghead]
 

SpaceCritter

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
19,105
Likes
17,662
Location
In Orbit
Interesting question. There were certainly lockdowns, quarantines, and mask mandates in the pandemic a century ago. But people were far less mobile back then, and they probably didn't affect people as much, while simultaneously being more effective. 3 million people got on planes in the last 3 days that make a huge potential spread unimaginable back then, when people probably generally stayed within a few miles of their homes for the most part. So you probably need tighter restrictions to have the same effect.
"A century ago" ISN'T point of comparison. 1968, 1957, and, of course, 1918, are. And NOPE. Not even in 1918 (which IS a century ago) did we see the kinds of lunacy we're seeing now that has NOTHING to do with "health" - "public" or otherwise.

Know where you don't have as tight restrictions right now? Wuhan, China. They were far more restrictive, but eliminated the virus with a severe 4+ week lockdown. I know an expat there, not in Wuhan proper but in Hubei province. He kept saying, "Why are you guys all upset, it's just a few more weeks until you're out." But we half-assed it compared to them, and didn't have nearly as effective a response.
bwaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! THEY PLAYED US LIKE A CHEAP FIDDLE!
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
145
Likes
87
Location
Newton, MA
Think about what you wrote. People travel more than ever, Wuhan is now open and free. Hmmm. If people still travel to and from Wuhan. Then the only thing that makes sense is Wuhan being the origin of a hoax, otherwise their now unrestricted city would be reinfected by a traveling Swede.
That's not exactly what I wrote. If you're Chinese you can move around in China. No traveling Swedes. Almost all foreign nationals are banned - they are letting some people with residency permits from other countries enter, you need a negative Covid test and quarantine on arrival. The expat I know never left, he could not come back if he did.

Got into an argument at work about this. They started saying its because China has more discipline than us to follow lock down rules. [banghead]
While Asians are much more disciplined with masks, cultural, you'll get your ass kicked if you don't, the lockdown in China was enforced by a government which can be decidedly totalitarian.
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
145
Likes
87
Location
Newton, MA
"A century ago" ISN'T point of comparison. 1968, 1957, and, of course, 1918, are. And NOPE. Not even in 1918 (which IS a century ago) did we see the kinds of lunacy we're seeing now that has NOTHING to do with "health" - "public" or otherwise.
I was referring to 1918, which IS a point of comparison, and a century ago, as you contradict yourself in your next sentence. In 1918 there were mask mandates, mandated business closures, and restrictions on gathering size. People protested restrictions on houses of worship, and in San Francisco LE even shot and killed a guy for not wearing a mask. Seemed pretty similar to today.
 

SpaceCritter

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
19,105
Likes
17,662
Location
In Orbit
I was referring to 1918, which IS a point of comparison, and a century ago, as you contradict yourself in your next sentence. In 1918 there were mask mandates, mandated business closures, and restrictions on gathering size. People protested restrictions on houses of worship, and in San Francisco LE even shot and killed a guy for not wearing a mask. Seemed pretty similar to today.
The restrictions in 1918 were not nearly as widespread as they are today, and this virus pales in comparison in virulence. 675000 in the US died of it - we would need to lose north of TWO MILLION today to be comparable... and while SARS-CoV-2 affects mainly the elderly and infirm, the 1918 flu was horrifying in that it attacked not only the very old, but both the very young and people in their prime. And we have reason to believe the casualty count then wasn't being goosed for political reasons, unlike today's.
 

HuntMaine

NES Member
Rating - 100%
15   0   0
Joined
Apr 6, 2009
Messages
6,052
Likes
3,244
Location
2A Supporter
Got into an argument at work about this. They started saying its because China has more discipline than us to follow lock down rules. [banghead]
If more disciplined means that they created this to do exactly what it has done to the world economy and political landscape, then yes. Funny they had the genetic code of the virus instantly and a vaccine much earlier in the year.
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
145
Likes
87
Location
Newton, MA
Funny they had the genetic code of the virus instantly and a vaccine much earlier in the year.
Everyone had the genetic code pretty much "instantly" by mid-late January - that happens quickly once the virus is isolated and you have samples. The Chinese vaccine hasn't happened any sooner than anyone else's, they've simply distributed more of it under emergency use conditions without completing trials - which are lagging behind those of our vaccines. If you think ours is early you definitely don't want theirs.
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
145
Likes
87
Location
Newton, MA
The restrictions in 1918 were not nearly as widespread as they are today, and this virus pales in comparison in virulence. 675000 in the US died of it - we would need to lose north of TWO MILLION today to be comparable... and while SARS-CoV-2 affects mainly the elderly and infirm, the 1918 flu was horrifying in that it attacked not only the very old, but both the very young and people in their prime. And we have reason to believe the casualty count then wasn't being goosed for political reasons, unlike today's.
Fewer %age of people felt restrictions in 1918 because only about 50% lived in urban areas vs. 80% today. Most cities had restrictions similar to those today, although NYC's were noticeably less taxing - staggered business hours to reduce crowding vs. outright closure, for instance. Still, people can and were arrested for spitting, which would be unfathomable today. People were more respectful and observant of guidelines then IMO.

I do think the 1918 flu was more deadly but it is hard to make a direct comparison - many of those would have lived if it occurred today, medicine has advanced tremendously. No antibiotics to treat bacterial pneumonia as a secondary infection back then. This is perhaps the main reason why so many younger people died in the 1918 flu vs. now. Today, we even have people with pulse-oximeters breathing oxygen from their oxy-acetylene torches while they treat Covid-19 at home because they can't/won't go to a hospital. Not happening back then.
 

ccm75

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Dec 4, 2007
Messages
5,554
Likes
2,402
Location
Worcester County
If this situation is so dire, why isnt the federal govt treating this like a world war response and have all capable production facilities cranking out the vaccine?

Should not trucks be rolling into towns vaccinating thousands of people every day?
I see people in standing in line around the block to get tested. Wheres the long lines for vaccines?
We are capable of a much bigger overwhelming response with the vaccine.....

What's the hold up? Where's the D-Day type urgency?

Ps. Be kind - I'm on day 6 of the Covid19 infection. I'm a little foggy and been in solitary confinement for too long. [thinking]
 

meh

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 2, 2016
Messages
1,129
Likes
1,197
Location
Massachusetts
and have all capable production facilities cranking out the vaccine?

Well, my first reaction is cynical, since the virus was released (I believe) for political purposes and is now being exploited for political purposes. It's a serious disease, but they've been hyping it up to the point where you'd think the full recovery rate was less than 80% or something. Why are they doing that? Why present it as anything more than what the hospitalization and death statistics (including excess deaths) say that it is? The answer, I think, is because having much of the populace looking to their politicians for support in these "difficult times" is an institutionalist's dream, and they're not going to want to let go of the power that they've grabbed. Not only that, but the big corporations with deep pockets are making money hand over fist at the expense of small businesses. So, while populists might ask why don't we sprint out of the pandemic, the institutionalists are going to want to put the brakes on. "Let's not be so hasty."

Anyway, that's a lot of speculation on my part, and being too free with speculation can take you to a pure fantasy world. These are the first approved mRNA vaccines ever. While you might be right to suspect that production can be done by several other facilities quickly, I don't know why we'd assume it, let alone know it given that Moderna and Pfizer had months to develop production capabilities for their own vaccines in parallel with testing, owing to federal money. So they can be up and running with whatever capacity they have online, but how long does it take to set up production from scratch in a facility appropriate for making such things? Somebody here is going to know that? Nope. Plus, I'm ready to take the Moderna (preferably) or the Pfizer vaccine, but I'd sure think twice about "Dr. Reddy's" version of either.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
26,661
Likes
4,939
they had the genetic code of the virus instantly and a vaccine much earlier in the year.

Really? I thought the ones out now are the first.


If this situation is so dire, why isnt the federal govt treating this like a world war response and have all capable production facilities cranking out the vaccine?

Should not trucks be rolling into towns vaccinating thousands of people every day?
I see people in standing in line around the block to get tested. Wheres the long lines for vaccines?
We are capable of a much bigger overwhelming response with the vaccine.....

What's the hold up? Where's the D-Day type urgency?

Ps. Be kind - I'm on day 6 of the Covid19 infection. I'm a little foggy and been in solitary confinement for too long. [thinking]
Kind of what I was getting at earlier with the "Where's the plan?". They are known numbers and quantities and locations. Where's the math?
 

SpaceCritter

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
19,105
Likes
17,662
Location
In Orbit
Well, my first reaction is cynical, since the virus was released (I believe) for political purposes and is now being exploited for political purposes. It's a serious disease, but they've been hyping it up to the point where you'd think the full recovery rate was less than 80% or something. Why are they doing that? Why present it as anything more than what the hospitalization and death statistics (including excess deaths) say that it is? The answer, I think, is because having much of the populace looking to their politicians for support in these "difficult times" is an institutionalist's dream, and they're not going to want to let go of the power that they've grabbed. Not only that, but the big corporations with deep pockets are making money hand over fist at the expense of small businesses. So, while populists might ask why don't we sprint out of the pandemic, the institutionalists are going to want to put the brakes on. "Let's not be so hasty."
The "why" I've been through already:

Short form:
Key para:
By 2016, the world was witnessing a surge in populism and nationalism, as exemplified by Brexit and the election of Donald Trump, as well as the electoral rise of various parties in Europe. Indubitably, the globalist elites in their various organizations, agencies, and gatherings - example: the World Economic Forum - found this development troubling and sought to undo this trend and prevent it from happening again.

Longer SpaceCritter ranty form:
 
Top Bottom