You made an unqualified statement about natural "immunization" being superior to vaccination. Rather than qualify it and acknowledge that there are competing studies, you made a comment that it was superior and that you would rather trust data and science.calbear93 said:I am more than happy to be corrected, but I do question the controls in the CDC study.Unit2Sucks said:Aaron Rodgers immune system didn't prevent him from getting COVID at least twice. Ditto for Lamar Jackson. Turns out they weren't alone since a lot of people have had COVID more than once. People love to talk about breakthrough infection while ignoring repeat infection of the unvaccinated.calbear93 said:And we will all eventually catch it. It does an amazing job of teaching the immune system (not as well as natural immunization - again I rather trust data and science) of those vaccinated of fighting the symptoms and relieving the overburden on our healthcare system and our economy/supply chain.calpoly said:You cannot catch a broken leg or a genetic disorder from someone. You can catch COVID from someone. It's not that hard to see the difference!calbear93 said:I view this differently.calumnus said:calbear93 said:calumnus said:calbear93 said:concernedparent said:I suppose it's better to be a moron than a dishonest moron.ClevelandBear said:
He can have any opinion he wants. What rubs me the wrong way is how intentionally deceptive he was. Even if I strongly disagree with him, at least Kyrie is up front about his choice and rationale.
It was a stupid response by Rodgers to a question the journalist had no right asking.
It was a highly relevant question. Aaron could have declined to answer it, or answer it truthfully.
The folks who needed to know, the NFL, the team, and his teammates, already had the information. Just because gossipy folks wanted to know his medical records does not mean it was a decent question. Your neighbors or co-workers may be curious about your medical condition or records, but it does not mean it is decent for them to ask or publish your records. There is a reason why HIPAA is one of the most strict privacy laws we have.
He is the QB for the GB Packers, I am not. Reporters ask all kinds of questions related to QB's ability to do their job and win the next game. "Russell Wilson, how is your finger healing? Are you able to throw? When might we see you back on the field?" technically violates HIPAA. Wilson could not answer it if he did not want to, but you cannot say it is not a legitimate question for a sports reporter to ask. The fact Rodgers was not vaccinated and caught COVID and now missed the Monday Nightt matchup with Kansas City as a result only proves that the question was a highly relevant one for fans of the Packers and the NFL, the reason he was being interviewed.
Again, no one says he or any player has to answer any question, including questions about their health, but it was clearly a very good and relevant question for fans of the football team he plays for.
Breaking a finger that is obvious to all may be more accepted and not as confidential. I may see that my neighbor has a broken leg and a cast and ask about it. On the other hand, if I asked whether he practices safe sex or whether he has auto-immune disorder or results of his last cancer treatment, that seems a bit more personal.
There are a lot of things that may impact a player's ability to play next week or next year, including whether he has a genetic disorder. Just because I want to know as a football fan does not mean it is decent for a journalist to ask.
Now, we may disagree whether vaccination status falls under the broken finger or safe sex/genetic disorder spectrum, but I disagree that a journalist can ask without shame any personal question that may impact a player's ability to play in the future just because we have bunch of nosy fans who just want to know everything about every celebrity.
You say you trust science but a recent CDC study says that vaccination is superior to protection from prior infection. Perhaps it's time to update your thinking on vaccine vs natural protection/immunity. That could change over time or depending on the source of prior infection, but I think it's clear at this point that you can't reasonably make the unqualified statement that you made.
I was referring to the Johns Hopkins report based on data from Israel, which seems to have more controls.
https://ncrc.jhsph.edu/research/comparing-sars-cov-2-natural-immunity-to-vaccine-induced-immunity-reinfections-versus-breakthrough-infections/
My mind is open to new perspective, and I am truly willing to be corrected. However, it should be clear data and not some snide shaming attempt. Since you seem confident enough to be somewhat arrogant, let me know where you think the Johns Hopkins study is wrong. They do disclaim that we should not conclude natural immunity is superior just because data indicates so, but their data would seem to lead to that conclusion.
Also, the fact that there is such a large difference in ethnicity, age group, and sample numbers between natural immunity vs. vaccination in the CDC study, I would naturally wonder how much of the difference (5% vs. 8%) is based on exposure (e.g., minorities may be in more high exposure work environment), health conditions, etc.
If you feel like you are knowledgeable enough to claim that the data from Johns Hopkins study is outdated and I need to update my thinking, please convince me with how the CDC study is superior to the Johns Hopkins study.
Also, you should correct your thinking on Aaron Rodgers. I don't believe he said he previously had it. I may be wrong, but I thought he was saying he was immunized through natural, alternative medicine. If you had support for claiming that Rodgers was infected twice, please share that information so that I can "update" my thinking.
You have to choose to miss the point of my message because I didn't mince words: "I think it's clear at this point that you can't reasonably make the unqualified statement that you made." I don't think you disagree with this statement but only you can say. If you want to quibble over which study you prefer, that's perfectly fine. The Israeli study wasn't perfect either because the group of fully vaccinated people I believe was disproportionately older or more at risk individuals (because they had been vaccinated in an early cohort). The Israeli study also confirmed that prior infection plus vaccination was even better than either alone - yet another reason to vaccinate.
As for Rodgers not having said he was infected previously, that's a good point - thank you for correcting me. I wrongly assumed he had been infected previously but after looking into it, it appears he really did just have some alternative "treatment" which makes his like about being immunized even more scurrilous.