Jump to content
CarolAnn

Baseball

Recommended Posts

Here's #715 (breaking Babe Ruth's all-time home run record).  He would go on to hit 755.  No steroids necessary.
 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Salmon Mousse said:

Hank Aaron dies within 28 days of getting the shot.... by covid logic this makes him a vaccine death, right

image.thumb.png.60db5e932df8b309939cb7a9b92e0ba2.png


What is it you think the vaccine can do? One in ten get a “bad” reaction i.e. the body develops a temporary raised temperature, but if anything that’s a good sign. It shows your immune system is in tip top shape. The temperature disappears after 1-2 days, as the body soon realises that there is no real threat present.

 

It’s plainly clear that the vaccine played no role in his death.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Ulitzer95 said:


What is it you think the vaccine can do? One in ten get a “bad” reaction i.e. the body develops a temporary raised temperature, but if anything that’s a good sign. It shows your immune system is in tip top shape. The temperature disappears after 1-2 days, as the body soon realises that is no real threat present.

 

It’s plainly clear that the vaccine played no role in his death.

 

That's pure speculation.  My comment, while tongue-n-cheek, accurately referenced how deaths are counted. 

This is not a normal vaccine.  It's not magic.  It was rushed out with a technology never before tested in human beings.  It's benefit is still in question and it will and has caused deaths.  Would love to trust it as the smoking gun that gets us beyond the virus but that's just incredibly wishful thinking and no amount of facepalm reactions will change that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure the mortality among those who get the vaccine is the same of the general population. You don't probably understand vaccines don't make you immortal.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, drol said:

Pretty sure the mortality among those who get the vaccine is the same of the general population. You don't probably understand vaccines don't make you immortal.


Exactly.

 

I think on the Pfizer trials there were 43,500 people on it. Of those 8 died within the time frame. Read the small print of the trial you’ll see they tested every group of people they could, including those with terminal illnesses, and age groups that included 80+, 90+ year olds etc. so likely that those 8 were within the expectancy of mortality for their respective groups. Of those 8, 5 were actually on the placebo not the vaccine (not that they knew that ofc). I wish people would read the small print on research pieces before just jumping to daft conclusions by only lapping up a headline or a Tweet they saw.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Salmon Mousse said:

 

That's pure speculation.  My comment, while tongue-n-cheek, accurately referenced how deaths are counted. 

This is not a normal vaccine.  It's not magic.  It was rushed out with a technology never before tested in human beings.  It's benefit is still in question and it will and has caused deaths.  Would love to trust it as the smoking gun that gets us beyond the virus but that's just incredibly wishful thinking and no amount of facepalm reactions will change that.

 

Could you show your source for its having caused a death, please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ulitzer95 said:


Exactly.

 

I think on the Pfizer trials there were 43,500 people on it. Of those 8 died within the time frame. Read the small print of the trial you’ll see they tested every group of people they could, including those with terminal illnesses, and age groups that included 80+, 90+ year olds etc. so likely that those 8 were within the expectancy of mortality for their respective groups. Of those 8, 5 were actually on the placebo not the vaccine (not that they knew that ofc). I wish people would read the small print on research pieces before just jumping to daft conclusions by only lapping up a headline or a Tweet they saw.

 

It's going to be hard to get real world data as there is this all out push to embrace these vaccines as our saviors.  Time will tell if either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines actually accomplish anything.  Israel seems to be the one to watch, at the moment, and it's not trending well.. yet.  The serious side effects are absolutely there, as are deaths.  The point is: moderate expectations.  Not sure how your media is portraying it but, over here in the states, they keep telling us we're not allowed to act like normal human beings even after being vaccinated.  Either way, again, my tongue--n-cheek comment about how deaths are being counted was accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Ulitzer95 said:

I think on the Pfizer trials there were 43,500 people on it. Of those 8 died within the time frame. Read the small print of the trial you’ll see they tested every group of people they could, including those with terminal illnesses, and age groups that included 80+, 90+ year olds etc. so likely that those 8 were within the expectancy of mortality for their respective groups. Of those 8, 5 were actually on the placebo not the vaccine (not that they knew that ofc). I wish people would read the small print on research pieces before just jumping to daft conclusions by only lapping up a headline or a Tweet they saw.

 

On a similar note there were four deaths in the OxfordAZ trials.  I can't remember all the details and whether they were on the placebo or not, but out of the 4 people who died, one died in a road accident and one was murdered :o  They are still recorded in the stats though.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Toast said:

 

Could you show your source for its having caused a death, please?

Fortune Teller Witch GIF by HelloGiggles - Find & Share on GIPHY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Toast said:

 

On a similar note there were four deaths in the OxfordAZ trials.  I can't remember all the details and whether they were on the placebo or not, but out of the 4 people who died, one died in a road accident and one was murdered :o  They are still recorded in the stats though.

 

So, they are counted in the same way covid deaths are counted then :lol:

  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Salmon Mousse said:

 

So, they are counted in the same way covid deaths are counted then :lol:

Surely. I'm sure vaccine will cause 70.000 deaths more than a year average in my country, like COVID did. Or they were all road accidents?

  • Haha 1
  • Facepalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Salmon Mousse said:

 

So, they are counted in the same way covid deaths are counted then :lol:

 

I don't know, you'll have to ask Widow's Peak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, drol said:

Surely. I'm sure vaccine will cause 70.000 deaths more than a year average in my country, like COVID did. Or they were all road accidents?

Can i know what that facepalm stands for? What is your deep argument?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, drol said:

Can i know what that facepalm stands for? What is your deep argument?

 

It's for your presumption that I must think all covid deaths are actually road accidents.  The flu has disappeared and totals for other usual killers has gone down noticeably but if you don't care to audit the numbers and instead take them at face value, that's fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Salmon Mousse said:

 

It's for your presumption that I must think all covid deaths are actually road accidents.  The flu has disappeared and totals for other usual killers has gone down noticeably but if you don't care to audit the numbers and instead take them at face value, that's fine.

1)What protects from COVID also protects from the flu. So the number of flu infected must be lower.

2)the 70.000 more deaths in a year have been calculated on general mortality, irrespective of the cause of death. How do you explain that?

3)I've known around 15 people who died of COVID, being in one of the hardest hit areas in the country. Only one of them had cancer too. Happy?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, drol said:

1)What protects from COVID also protects from the flu. So the number of flu infected must be lower.

2)the 70.000 more deaths in a year have been calculated on general mortality, irrespective of the cause of death. How do you explain that?

3)I've known around 15 people who died of COVID, being in one of the hardest hit areas in the country. Only one of them had cancer too. Happy?

 

1) why does it work for one and not the other?

2) having a tremendously hard time finding a total number of deaths in the UK in 2020 (only find it up to mid-November) and I don't simply want to go by macrotrends death rate chart. 

3) No, I'm never happy... but I am sorry for your losses.  The virus is very real and very serious for many people (I had it very seriously early on and took a long time recover, myself) but that doesn't mean the data is completely accurate.  That said, the western world has seemingly lost sight of everything else and the result will be millions of deaths over the next many years from poverty, famine, heart disease, depression, drugs, TB, etc.  Not only has the gap between have and have not never been made increasingly wider but those who have jobs that can't be done from home, but are required to be done for those who can to function, are being unceremoniously asked to bear a greater risk of infection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Salmon Mousse said:

 

1) why does it work for one and not the other?

2) having a tremendously hard time finding a total number of deaths in the UK in 2020 (only find it up to mid-November) and I don't simply want to go by macrotrends death rate chart. 

3) No, I'm never happy... but I am sorry for your losses.  The virus is very real and very serious for many people (I had it very seriously early on and took a long time recover, myself) but that doesn't mean the data is completely accurate.  That said, the western world has seemingly lost sight of everything else and the result will be millions of deaths over the next many years from poverty, famine, heart disease, depression, drugs, TB, etc.  Not only has the gap between have and have not never been made increasingly wider but those who have jobs that can't be done from home, but are required to be done for those who can to function, are being unceremoniously asked to bear a greater risk of infection.

1)I said it works for both

2)You can't answer on that

3)That wasn't what you were saying in first place. You were being a sassy twat and I hope you understand that. The economic problem is real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, drol said:

1)I said it works for both

2)You can't answer on that

3)That wasn't what you were saying in first place. You were being a sassy twat and I hope you understand that. The economic problem is real.

 

1) Given the peaks and valleys over the year I'd say it's clear that it doesn't.  The virus follows the seasonal/regional curve with no real regard for the differing measures taken.

2) I don't want to answer inaccurately.  Could only speak to UK numbers through mid-November, as I can't find an overall total for the year at this point.  Need a hard number for 2020 to be able to compare it to prior years.

3) If I'm a sassy twat it's because I've had way too much time to sit around and watch total destruction be pushed as a solution by people who have seemingly lost very little.  Data and actual science being dismissed constantly because it goes against the original narrative.  The billionaires becoming trillionaires while the lower classes are destroyed economically, mentally, and then physically through lockdown schemes that no only has absolutely no proven effect on the virus but directly puts the "essentials" at far greater risk of contracting it.  Whole thing has been a massive shift of both wealth and health from middle and bottom to the top-tier of the top-tier and the kicker is it's been done in a way in which even self-proclaimed socialists applaud it.  The most infuriating thing has been seeing is those who, seemingly for entirely political reasons, have developed a blind devotion to the official narrative  to the extent that, instead of blaming those in charge for their policies failing, blame their fellow citizens for "not doing their part".  It's always those whose lives have been disrupted very little who are so quick to jump on anyone mentally struggling to put up with what's happening.  Let me be clear, too, none of this is directed at you and is just a full explanation of where I'm personally coming from as I attempt to retain my remaining humanity.  A twattish comment, like the 28-day-counting one that originally launched this (which I stand by), may slide out here and there, sorry.  Also, in relation to the vaccine: it's not a normal vaccine and being skeptical that it's the magical savior, devoid of risk to all who take it, shouldn't be seen as some sort of heresy.

 

Anyway, back to wagering on when celebrities will die for fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Salmon Mousse said:

 Also, in relation to the vaccine: it's not a normal vaccine and being skeptical that it's the magical savior, devoid of risk to all who take it, shouldn't be seen as some sort of heresy.

 

You do know that there's more than one vaccine, and that they don't work in the same way?

Anyway it's too soon to tell if the vaccines are having an effect.  The vaccination programme is in the early stages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Toast said:

 

You do know that there's more than one vaccine, and that they don't work in the same way?

Anyway it's too soon to tell if the vaccines are having an effect.  The vaccination programme is in the early stages.

 

Yes, both use new synthetic mRNA technology, though

Correct, and basically my point.  People should, at very least, moderate their expectations about them and not ignore the existence of negative results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Salmon Mousse said:

 

Yes, both use new synthetic mRNA technology, though

Correct, and basically my point.  People should, at very least, moderate their expectations about them and not ignore the existence of negative results.

 

No, that's wrong.  The Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine is an adenoviral vector vaccine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to know which sportswriters left Henry Aaron off their ballot for

the HOF. The baseball commissioner  did not show up they day he hit #715.

He was not only one of the greatest players but a even better human being.

RIP Henry Aaron 1934- 2021

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Toast said:

 

No, that's wrong.  The Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine is an adenoviral vector vaccine. 

 

Ah yes, you're right, it's all Pfizer and Moderna here so I'd forgotten about Oxford.  Chimp tech, I believe.  Roughly about 20% less effective than the other two, supposedly, correct?... not that we know yet... as you stated earlier "early stages"

I do have a lot of hope for emerging therapeutics, by the way, and think that they are being criminally ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Salmon Mousse said:

 

Ah yes, you're right, it's all Pfizer and Moderna here so I'd forgotten about Oxford.  Chimp tech, I believe.  Roughly about 20% less effective than the other two, supposedly, correct?... not that we know yet... as you stated earlier "early stages"

I do have a lot of hope for emerging therapeutics, by the way, and think that they are being criminally ignored.

 

Yes, certain interests would like to forget about OxfordAZ because it's being distributed at cost, meaning nobody can make any money off it. :P

The Oxford trials were complicated by several factors, which did have the bonus of providing data on some variations - one of which being that the delayed second dose may have better efficacy than the standard three-week gap.

The Janssen (Johnson & Johnson), another adenoviral vaccine, is nearing the end of phase 3 trials and seems promising too.

 

And yes, prospects are also improving with some existing drugs being found effective in treating patients with the virus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

Your use of this forum is subject to our Terms of Use