ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 3272 of 3903
« First < 2272277231723222326232683269327032713272 32733274327532763282332233723772 > Last »
Nzoner's Game Room>***NON-POLITICAL COVID-19 Discussion Thread***
JakeF 10:28 PM 02-26-2020
A couple of reminders...

Originally Posted by Bwana:
Once again, don't come in this thread with some kind of political agenda, or you will be shown the door. If you want to go that route, there is a thread about this in DC.
Originally Posted by Dartgod:
People, there is a lot of good information in this thread, let's try to keep the petty bickering to a minimum.

We all have varying opinions about the impact of this, the numbers, etc. We will all never agree with each other. But we can all keep it civil.

Thanks!

Click here for the original OP:

Spoiler!

[Reply]
htismaqe 09:35 AM 12-09-2020
Originally Posted by R Clark:
Asshat just can’t help yourself
Funny, as far a ?onger goes, I found this question to be relatively harmless and most likely sincere.
[Reply]
Donger 09:37 AM 12-09-2020
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
I suppose #1 has slightly more weight with me but not much. I haven't honestly separated the two ideas that much.
So you're holding out for the J&J, which is not mRNA as I understand it?
[Reply]
O.city 09:37 AM 12-09-2020
Originally Posted by stevieray:
what percentage of people have already survived the VIRUS?
Depends on age and such, but last I saw the IFR was around 0.65 ish?

This isn’t black and white live or die though.
[Reply]
htismaqe 09:39 AM 12-09-2020
Originally Posted by Donger:
So you're holding out for the J&J, which is not mRNA as I understand it?
From what I understand, the AZ/Oxford is a weakened virus, that's the one I've been watching.
[Reply]
DaFace 09:40 AM 12-09-2020
Originally Posted by stevieray:
what percentage of people have already survived the VIRUS?
I just can't get over how idiotic these kinds of arguments are. 2.7 million soldiers were sent to Vietnam, among whom around 58k were killed. That's only 2%, so why are we so upset about Vietnam?

Looking at the severity of incidents purely in terms of a percentage survival rate is ridiculous.
[Reply]
O.city 09:40 AM 12-09-2020
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
From what I understand, the AZ/Oxford is a weakened virus, that's the one I've been watching.
Eh, not weakened. But it’s a more traditional delivery system
[Reply]
Monticore 09:42 AM 12-09-2020
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
Funny, as far a ?onger goes, I found this question to be relatively harmless and most likely sincere.
My skeptisim will depend on who my wife is eager to inject first me or the kids, if it's me i'll be worried.
[Reply]
Donger 09:42 AM 12-09-2020
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
From what I understand, the AZ/Oxford is a weakened virus, that's the one I've been watching.
I think it's an adenovirus vaccine and J&J has said that it'll be not-for-profit.

Thanks for your answers.
[Reply]
htismaqe 09:55 AM 12-09-2020
Originally Posted by Donger:
I think it's an adenovirus vaccine and J&J has said that it'll be not-for-profit.

Thanks for your answers.
That's correct. I was misremembering. The AZ vaccine is an adenovirus vaccine.
[Reply]
Rain Man 10:15 AM 12-09-2020
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
I don't want to take the mRNA vaccine. I would rather take a more traditional vaccine, at least until the mRNA vaccines have been widely deployed outside of clinical trials.
It's interesting that we have preferences. I've never even heard of vaccine brands before this whole situation.

I was reading something about the AstraZeneca vaccine being 62% effective, and thinking I want to get the moderna or Pfizer vaccine at 95 percent. I keep hearing that the Pfizer has the strongest aftereffects, so my rankings would be moderna, then Pfizer, then AstraZeneca. But since the 2016 presidential Administration turned down ordering enough Pfizer vaccine, it looks like I will probably get the AstraZeneca given my likely spot in line. I'd rather get the most effective one.
[Reply]
petegz28 10:35 AM 12-09-2020
Apparently a lot of backlash coming out of LA over the closing of outdoor dining. I guess a Judge said it is nothing more than an abuse of power and some county health director person said the decision to close outdoor dining had nothing to do with science but to limit the places people can go thus forcing them to stay home.
[Reply]
htismaqe 10:42 AM 12-09-2020
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
It's interesting that we have preferences. I've never even heard of vaccine brands before this whole situation.

I was reading something about the AstraZeneca vaccine being 62% effective, and thinking I want to get the moderna or Pfizer vaccine at 95 percent. I keep hearing that the Pfizer has the strongest aftereffects, so my rankings would be moderna, then Pfizer, then AstraZeneca. But since the 2016 presidential Administration turned down ordering enough Pfizer vaccine, it looks like I will probably get the AstraZeneca given my likely spot in line. I'd rather get the most effective one.
For me it's not brand, it has to do with the type/technology. The stuff I've read is that the AZ vaccine is about 75% but has pretty much zero in terms of side effects/risks because it's a well-used technology. I'm just not willing to be a "beta tester" for mRNA, even though "alpha testing" has been positive.
[Reply]
TLO 10:45 AM 12-09-2020
Russia is telling its people to limit their alcohol intake for 2 months following receiving the Sputnik vaccine.
[Reply]
htismaqe 10:49 AM 12-09-2020
Originally Posted by TLO:
Russia is telling its people to limit their alcohol intake for 2 months following receiving the Sputnik vaccine.
Good luck with that!
[Reply]
Monticore 10:53 AM 12-09-2020
Originally Posted by TLO:
Russia is telling its people to limit their alcohol intake for 2 months following receiving the Sputnik vaccine.
Inferior nanobot technology is my guess, stupid Russians.
[Reply]
Page 3272 of 3903
« First < 2272277231723222326232683269327032713272 32733274327532763282332233723772 > Last »
Up