Liberals do love their little technicalities. They can focus on the minutia while ignoring completely the main thrust of something.

I don’t care anymore. I’ll post links, people can do whatever the **** they want with them.

So, the reason Hopkins is interested in me is as part of a larger analysis on the impacts of the vaccines as well as those who were asymptomatic with CV-19 and show excellent levels of natural protection against CV-19.

This is next phase stuff, an acknowledgment that having CV-19 may provide a more lasting protection than the vaccine. That is what she is interested in.

I am also an "outlier'" according to her with an extremely detailed medical history...hundreds of pages from my Navy medical records. My primary care Doctor has been the same since I retired. I am also 64 in very good health with no co-morbidity issues.

She wants to meet in person so that I understand the potential risks of not getting vaccinated and go into more detail about some of the aspects of vaccinations I got in the military besides flu stuff.

On this they are extremely careful. If at any time I decide to get a vaccine, I am no longer in the study and they will not recommend either path: That is up to me and my primary care Doctor.

Should be interesting. I'll no doubt have to sign a non-disclosure if I agree to participate.

And from the NIH?

https://media2.giphy.com/media/MuTen...giphy.gif&ct=g

You toss out liberal quite easily.

I am pro life
I am pro military
I am pro police
I am pro 1st Amendment. Though business can restrict it as long as they are consistent to all.
I am pro 2nd Amendment. Though business can restrict it as long as they are consistent to all.
I am against Universal Basic Income
I have a lot of unanswered questions on global warming.
I am pro business and believe government should have as little influence as possible.
I think BLM is a joke.
I am against CRT
I think everyone should have the same opportunity to succeed or fail.
I am against mandatory vaccine policy by local, state, or federal entities towards the general public. I am also against local, state, or federal entities forbidding companies from making them a requirement.
I am for businesses requiring vaccines as long as they meet federal requirements.

Who did you vote for this last election?

At least that is a legit source. They believe there is risk of ADE and want it listed in the fact sheet. There are plenty of sources that believe it is not a widespread concern. Could it be listed? Sure. Should it? Don't know.

If it is true we should be seeing ADE in breakthrough cases. I haven't heard of any.

I don’t think it has been adequately studied, but given the increasing number of breakthrough cases and the high viral loads and transmissibility that were seeing, I wouldn’t bet against it.

I recall them telling us that the vaccine would be highly effective at preventing infection in the vaccinated people and that the vaccines will prevent the vaccinated from infecting the unvaccinated. Both of those turned out to be dead wrong. In fact, I am starting to form the opinion that the vaccinated population will see more infections than the unvaccinated population. That seems to be the case in many highly vaccinated countries. In that case, I’ll almost guarantee that ADE plays a role.

The last standing claim for the vaccines is that vaccinated people will have fewer and less problematic symptoms from an infection. Given that the Delta variant is probably behind a significant number, if not most of, the new infections and that it’s less virulent anyway, I’m not sure the vaccine has anything to do with it.

It’s early days, but I think these vaccines are going to turn out to be a big bust.

My answer was far too political. I deleted it and sent you a pm.

The new variants changed effectiveness. They were correct in regards to the original strain. The new strains, not so much.

But, that’s typical of mutations, isn’t it?

They knew that going in.

It was always going to mutate. The mutations are always going to be less virulent. That’s not unusual for a virus.

They are not always less virulent. More often, not always. A lot of research that believes the 2nd wave of the 1918 flu mutated into a more lethal strain.

Let us know if she’s hot, Seahawk.

Better yet, a pic so we can decide for ourselves how credible she is.

See if she’ll take $200 to jab an orange for you and give you the paperwork.

It was my understanding that the Delta variant is MORE virulent, (transmissible), not less than the previous version. By a factor of two, if not mistaken.

I just got off the phone with my brother, who has both had Covid19 and gotten vaccinated, in that order. In fact, he got vaccinated almost immediately after having the disease, in order to be able to travel to the U.S. from Europe(?) I can't remember the details on that. Both he and his wife got the J&J shot in France, they chose it so that they would not have to wait around for a month for the second shot.

We were talking about the large number of people in the U.S. who choose not to get vaccinated and what parts of the country this is occurring. I haven't been following the news closely but he said that you can observe the "heat map" in the NYT of hospitalizations in Florida, the south and places like Missouri. The virus is just ripping through, having its way with those populations 1.5 years after it started. He said that he's kind of fatalistic about the Delta variant, he thinks that everyone is going to get it and the vaccinated will survive but we might reach herd immunity the hard way.

It's really sad. I don't wish death on people just because we disagree on politics, unlike some here, if I'm supposed to believe the hyperbole. It's a strange situation.

Actually, you have that backwards. New strains are typically more virulent but less deadly. Is that what you meant to say?

In this case, it's not following that pattern. It's more virulent and every bit as deadly.

Christ, you need to send a bill to your high school for me, because I seem to be completing your education that they didn’t give you. Let’s define virulent, shall we?

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1628454985.jpg

As for the rest of your statement, here are the correct facts.

The Delta variant is more infectious. It is also less virulent.

Translation: you’re more likely to get it but it’s less likely to create serious problems.

You seen that recent news article about the cruise ship that came down with Covid outbreak? Everybody on the ship was vaccinated.

Check out the countries with high degrees of vaccination, like Iceland. Look at who’s getting infected.

And, before you get your blood pressure up, let me remind you that the virus is more infectious and the disease that results from it is Covid. It is the disease that is less virulent.

Ok, I stand corrected for mixing up virulent with contagious. I have not heard or read anything about it being less dangerous, if that's the case, it's great news.

Denis: “The virus is just ripping through, having its way with those populations 1.5 years after it started. He said that he's kind of fatalistic about the Delta variant, he thinks that everyone is going to get it and the vaccinated will survive but we might reach herd immunity the hard way.

It appears the vaccine is preventing, or at least delaying, herd immunity. In the long run, herd immunity is deemed the best solution, especially by the evolutionists.

I’ve been fatalistic about COVID from day one. Yet, because everyone around me isn’t, I’ve done every single thing the powers have told me to do. Like a sheep. Nobody I know (including me) has been tested for antibodies so not one of us knows if we’ve ever had it or not.