America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 4 hours ago by frankj1. 58 replies replies.
2 Pages12>
Herman Cain dies of COVID19.
Speyside Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 10,700
RIP.
Whistlebritches Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 04-23-2006
Posts: 19,375
Saw this earlier...........hate it,he was a stand up guy and my Guy in 2012.

RIP Sir
Mr. Jones Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 06-12-2005
Posts: 12,557
Cycleman passes from the COVID19...

BELLY UP
BELLY UP
BELLY UP FROM DA COVIDDDDD...

BELLY UP
BELLY UP
BELLY UP FROM DA COVIDDDDD..
victor809 Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,193
Hermain Cain wrote:


@THEHermanCain
Don't believe the scare stories. A serious look at the numbers tells you there's no second wave starting. #Coronavirus 4:01 AM · Jun 12, 2020



rfenst Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 31,546
Dripping with irony.
I have got nothing against Herman Cain, but while the hell was he thinking when attending Trump's Tulsa rally without a mask?
danmdevries Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 02-11-2014
Posts: 13,027
rfenst wrote:
Dripping with irony.
I have got nothing against Herman Cain, but while the hell was he thinking when attending Trump's Tulsa rally without a mask?


Believed in what he preached.

Putting money where his mouth be

If you dont believe its real, it can't touch you so fuxk your masks.
victor809 Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,193
rfenst wrote:
Dripping with irony.
I have got nothing against Herman Cain, but while the hell was he thinking when attending Trump's Tulsa rally without a mask?


I have nothing against the guy either.
But the republican party at that time (and really up until a couple days ago) believed wearing a mask was showing a lack of alignment with the party principles. (don't ask me how).

Hell, journalists are apparently hearing from a number of staffers for republican congresspeople who are discouraged from wearing masks in the office. Gohmert's people being one of them.

He was a good party member, and was willing to stay on-brand.
gummy jones Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,454
rest in peace


tailgater Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 24,899
If I were 74 with an immune system that had to defeat stage 4 colon cancer, I'd have been more careful.

frankj1 Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 34,736
if I knew I could infect someone else, maybe even cause them much physical damage or death, I'd wear a mask.

Oh wait, that's why I wear one.

He didn't get sick and die because he didn't wear a mask, but rather because he hung around an infected person who did not wear a mask.
rfenst Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 31,546
frankj1 wrote:
if I knew I could infect someone else, maybe even cause them much physical damage or death, I'd wear a mask.

Oh wait, that's why I wear one.

He didn't get sick and die because he didn't wear a mask, but rather because he hung around an infected person who did not wear a mask.

Are you implying that using a mask provides no additional protection to the wearer?
Mcdanielsamuel Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 04-28-2020
Posts: 391
Time for an infographic:
https://www.nebraskamed.com/sites/default/files/images/covid19/wearamask_infographic.jpg

They have to show us pictures here in Nebraska.
frankj1 Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 34,736
rfenst wrote:
Are you implying that using a mask provides no additional protection to the wearer?

nope, but when others wear them I am at much less risk.
I wear them for others, primarily.

Now the type that hospital personnel wear protect the wearer for sure.
BuckyB93 Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 8,760
You got the Rona?
frankj1 Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 34,736
haven't been tested.

but my knee swelled up today.
You don't think...
Whistlebritches Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 04-23-2006
Posts: 19,375
frankj1 wrote:
haven't been tested.

but my knee swelled up today.
You don't think...



We're just thankful it was your knee
BuckyB93 Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 8,760
Lance it and see what color oozes out. That will determine which type of leech we need to use in order to bring the swelling down. Not a long term cure but... in times like these...
DrMaddVibe Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 48,700
9 9 9
frankj1 Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 34,736
feeling better just knowing I'm in good hands
tonygraz Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 13,651
Should have spent .99 on a mask and avoided anything trump.
frankj1 Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 34,736
you still talking about Herman?

tonygraz Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 13,651
yep.
frankj1 Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 34,736
he just wouldn't listen to the right info, I guess.

tailgater Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 24,899
frankj1 wrote:


He didn't get sick and die because he didn't wear a mask, but rather because he hung around an infected person who did not wear a mask.



You don't know this.


And I won't go "anti-mask" on you. I have no issue wearing them in places that require them.
But what you state above isn't necessarily accurate.

Throughout history, when people would quarantine the sick, the healthy people taking care of them are the ones to wear the masks. Not the sick.

Speyside Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 10,700
He didn't use common sense. Wearing a mask provides some benefit. Being at the Tulsa rally was a mistake. He is dead. The only fact we know is COVID19 killed him. I suspect he was around many other people who did not wear masks, yet not a fact.
tonygraz Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 13,651
It didn't seem to bother a maskless trump arriving in Florida yesterday. But then what would one expect ?
frankj1 Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 34,736
tailgater wrote:
You don't know this.


And I won't go "anti-mask" on you. I have no issue wearing them in places that require them.
But what you state above isn't necessarily accurate.

Throughout history, when people would quarantine the sick, the healthy people taking care of them are the ones to wear the masks. Not the sick.



I think we all kinda know this...

we have those masks today for the caretakers. The N95 or whatever the name.
I didn't say he got sick because he didn't wear a mask, but it wouldn't be a surprise if he passed it along for that reason.

we agree on places that require them, but I go a step further and use one when in proximity to other people...cuz I never know from day to day if I have the cooties.
BuckyB93 Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 8,760
You are going to go through the rest of your life behind a mask thinking that you might be a carrier?
frankj1 Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 34,736
not once it magically disappears...

or more likely once it is behaving more like the thousands of other viruses that live among us at all times.
HockeyDad Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 38,648
BuckyB93 wrote:
You are going to go through the rest of your life behind a mask thinking that you might be a carrier?


Yes. That is currently state mandate and county mandate where I live and has been since March.
BuckyB93 Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 8,760
Your choice. It's not going to disappear. Things like that don't disappear. It's not a sentient being, it's not gonna change it's behavior.

It's like all other viruses in that humans will have to adapt and develop biological defenses to fight it or die trying. There will be no vaccine that will immunize us against it.

The common flu has been around forever.
Chicken pox has been around forever.
(insert favorite viral infection here) has been around forever.

We have no cure for these. People still catch them, people still die from them. Those whose bodies can't develop defenses to fight them off, will die. Those who can, will live on.

This one is just a new player that has entered in the ring. It's here to stay, nothing we can do about it.
victor809 Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,193
We're in phase 3 of a vaccine trial...

I mean, it may not get approved... But there's a couple others right behind it
BuckyB93 Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 8,760
HockeyDad wrote:
Yes. That is currently state mandate and county mandate where I live and has been since March.


I was wondering that lately. How long can these mandates be in place? I thought they could only be in place for a set amount of time. Can the governors just keep signing new proclamations and keep them going as long as they see fit?

Is it kinda like squatters rights where if they are in place long enough they become common law or sumptin?
BuckyB93 Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 8,760
victor809 wrote:
We're in phase 3 of a vaccine trial...

I mean, it may not get approved... But there's a couple others right behind it


It means nothing.

The yearly "vaccine" for the common flu is only about 50% effective and a new one has to be developed year after year.
tonygraz Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 13,651
The yearly vaccine is only effective for what viruses it includes. The effectivity depends on how well they guess which viruses ill be prevalent, so the effective % varies. And yes, this flu will be around forever and will not magically disappear no matter what moron says it will.
HockeyDad Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 38,648
tonygraz wrote:
The yearly vaccine is only effective for what viruses it includes. The effectivity depends on how well they guess which viruses ill be prevalent, so the effective % varies. And yes, this flu will be around forever and will not magically disappear no matter what moron says it will.


You’d think they would just put all of them in the vaccine.
HockeyDad Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 38,648
BuckyB93 wrote:
I was wondering that lately. How long can these mandates be in place? I thought they could only be in place for a set amount of time. Can the governors just keep signing new proclamations and keep them going as long as they see fit?

Is it kinda like squatters rights where if they are in place long enough they become common law or sumptin?


When Anwar Sadat was assassinated in 1981, Egypt declared a state of emergency that lasted until 2012. Gotta check the fine print on this kind of stuff.
victor809 Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,193
Bucky... You realize there are other viruses which we have stable, long vaccines for, right?

You should look into the results from the current state of trials before spouting off.
frankj1 Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 34,736
tonygraz wrote:
The yearly vaccine is only effective for what viruses it includes. The effectivity depends on how well they guess which viruses ill be prevalent, so the effective % varies. And yes, this flu will be around forever and will not magically disappear no matter what moron says it will.

wait. he lied to me?
BuckyB93 Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 8,760
victor809 wrote:
Bucky... You realize there are other viruses which we have stable, long vaccines for, right?

You should look into the results from the current state of trials before spouting off.


I was hoping you would fill that in for us Vikipedia.

What makes you think a "vaccine" for the current Rona is going to be successful when the "vaccine" for the strains of the common flu (which we are much more familiar with) are only around 50% effective year after year after year... It ranges from about 40-60% depending on the year and how well they guess on what flavor of juice the inject you with.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/season/past-flu-seasons.htm

I don't think that I'd call 50% as being successful, I'd call it a crap shoot. We're not talking baseball batting averages here.
BuckyB93 Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 8,760
Effectiveness
A vaccine is assessed by its efficacy – the extent to which it reduces risk of disease under controlled conditions – and its effectiveness – the observed reduction in risk after the vaccine is put into use.[26] In the case of influenza, effectiveness is expected to be lower than the efficacy because it is measured using the rates of influenza-like illness, which is not always caused by influenza.[6] Influenza vaccines generally show high efficacy, as measured by the antibody production in animal models or vaccinated people.[27] However, studies on the effectiveness of flu vaccines in the real world are difficult; vaccines may be imperfectly matched, virus prevalence varies widely between years, and influenza is often confused with other influenza-like illnesses.[28] However, in most years (16 of the 19 years before 2007), the flu vaccine strains have been a good match for the circulating strains,[29] and even a mismatched vaccine can often provide cross-protection.[20] The virus rapidly changes due to antigenic drift, a slight mutation in the virus that causes a new strain to arise.[30]
Repeated annual influenza vaccination generally offer consistent year-on-year protection against influenza.[31] There is however suggestive evidence that repeated vaccinations may cause a reduction in vaccine effectiveness for certain influenza subtypes; this has no relevance to current recommendations for yearly vaccinations but might influence future vaccination policy.[32][33] As of 2019, the CDC recommends a yearly vaccine as most studies demonstrate overall effectiveness of annual influenza vaccination.[31]

Criticism

Tom Jefferson, who has led Cochrane Collaboration reviews of flu vaccines, has called clinical evidence concerning flu vaccines "rubbish" and has therefore declared them to be ineffective; he has called for placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials, which most in the field hold as unethical. His views on the efficacy of flu vaccines are rejected by medical institutions including the CDC and the National Institutes of Health, and by key figures in the field like Anthony Fauci.[34]
Michael Osterholm, who led the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy 2012 review on flu vaccines, recommended getting the vaccine but criticized its promotion, saying, "We have overpromoted and overhyped this vaccine...it does not protect as promoted. It's all a sales job: it's all public relations".[35]

US vaccine effectiveness by start year:[23][24][25]
2004 10%
2005 21%
2006 52%
2007 37%
2008 41%
2009 56%
2010 60%
2011 47%
2012 49%
2013 52%
2014 19%
2015 48%
2016 40%
2017 38%
2018 29%
2019 45% est


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_vaccine

If you're waiting for an effective "vaccine" for the Rona virus, one that behaves like the other virus'... these are the results for the "vaccine" that the medical field encourages you to get every year for the common seasonal flu.

Pretty effective huh?
victor809 Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,193
God you're so fuxking stupid.

You have zero idea how a flu vaccine is developed. I've worked to prepare our facilities for each year's vaccine production.

But you're going to go and wikipedia it and pretend you're intelligent.

Stop and think for a minute you fuxking moron. When do you get the flu vaccine?

You get it at the beginning of the flu season. They aren't developing and making the flu vaccine while the flu is killing off thousands of people. They do it before hand, based on their best prediction of what the combination of mutable surface proteins will be expressed (what do you think the "H" and the "N" stand for when they talk about the strain?)

So, you idiot, this explains the lower effectiveness of the annual flu vaccine.

Now, you complete and utter c$ckhole, lets talk about other things you have no understanding of. Like the clinical trial methodology. Do you think a drug would be in Phase III if it weren't providing some results? The answer is no. If you'd even bothered to do the most minimal amount of googling you would have known that this vaccine is able to trigger an antibody response equivalent to that of people who have been infected with COVID. If you understood anything about this before opening your gaping maw of ignorance, you would realize that if that is not going to be reasonably effective, then you may also be reinfected with COVID.

Jesus christ. I get you don't like me. I don't honestly care. But I wish you'd try to be moderately intelligent in your dislike. Those posts are so obscenely stupid and show absolutely no understanding of vaccines, viruses... or even science itself.
opelmanta1900 Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 12,167
how effective are the current vaccines we have for sars and mers?

seems weird anyone would be talking about the flu since everyone knows coronaviruses are nothing like the flu...
victor809 Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,193
I don't know if we ever got a successful vaccine developed for SARS or MERS. Their impact was much lower, so I'm not sure if any companies ever tried to develop a vaccine.

Also, in exciting vaccine info, the vaccine currently leading the pack (because there are currently a few candidates) would be the first ever vaccine delivered as RNA. That's pretty awesome, and the development of that has probably contributed to how quickly we are able to get a vaccine out there.

Of course, it may not work in the end. But it appears to be working in trials.
HockeyDad Offline
#45 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 38,648
Does it cause autism?
victor809 Offline
#46 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,193
hopefully.
BuckyB93 Offline
#47 Posted:
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 8,760
Struck a nerve there Skippy? Hope you didn't have an aneurysm during your rant. Also, people might take you a little more seriously if you were to refrain from the adolescent name calling you little child. Did you get picked on in high school so much that you need to release your pent up anger on a cigar forum?

What makes you think that I know nothing about how vaccines work or about clinical trials and FDA approvals? Ohhhh.... that's right, you're a mind reader.

I'm sure a "vaccine" will be developed and approved by the FDA in record time. There's too much money, political and professional pressure at stake here to not have one. I sure as hell ain't going to wait in line and volunteer to be a test monkey when it gets released for public consumption. That said, I have money on moderna and Pfizer to be winners here and a small amount on Inovio just for fun.

Re: the flu vaccine. Most everyone is aware that it's administered prior to the flu season. It's based on a best guess of which strain(s) to target as a result of observing which strain(s) is(are) most likely to spread, cause the most illnesses, and historical data on past concoctions. That still doesn't change the fact that they are not much better than a coin flip for effectiveness. If you think what ever is developed for Rona is going to be better than this, you're on crack.

victor809 Offline
#48 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,193
BuckyB93 wrote:
Struck a nerve there Skippy? Hope you didn't have an aneurysm during your rant. Also, people might take you a little more seriously if you were to refrain from the adolescent name calling you little child. Did you get picked on in high school so much that you need to release your pent up anger on a cigar forum?


Oh no. I just enjoy pointing out how absolutely thoroughly idiotic your statement was.
wrote:

What makes you think that I know nothing about how vaccines work or about clinical trials and FDA approvals? Ohhhh.... that's right, you're a mind reader.

Your last post pretty much proved it.
wrote:

I'm sure a "vaccine" will be developed and approved by the FDA in record time. There's too much money, political and professional pressure at stake here to not have one. I sure as hell ain't going to wait in line and volunteer to be a test monkey when it gets released for public consumption. That said, I have money on moderna and Pfizer to be winners here and a small amount on Inovio just for fun.

Re: the flu vaccine. Most everyone is aware that it's administered prior to the flu season. It's based on a best guess of which strain(s) to target as a result of observing which strain(s) is(are) most likely to spread, cause the most illnesses, and historical data on past concoctions. That still doesn't change the fact that they are not much better than a coin flip for effectiveness. If you think what ever is developed for Rona is going to be better than this, you're on crack.




Continuing with the absolutely idiotic statements are we.
I swear, I know not everyone has the opportunity to learn, but this goes beyond a simple lack of knowledge. You literally just stated issues with the annual influenza vaccine which are not present with the coronavirus, and then stated that the coronavirus vaccine will not be any better than the influenza vaccine. Literally all your information should tell you the opposite, but you actively want to ignore it.

It's like you are actively trying to be dumb
BuckyB93 Offline
#49 Posted:
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 8,760
Please enlighten us oh wise one.
victor809 Offline
#50 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,193
Huh?

The entirety of my thesis was "we have a vaccine in Phase III trials".
There's not a lot of enlightenment necessary for that.

You're the one who decided to go in the direction of "it'll never work because of a lot of things I will now demonstrate very little understanding of!"

It may work. It may not. But not for any of the reasons you stated above.

Heck, we may find injecting RNA for specific viral proteins into the human body is a really bad idea. That'd be a great capstone to 2020.
We may find that our bodies don't retain an antibody response to it, for whatever reason. This is unlikely
We may find that it mutates enough to create strains our body doesn't recognize, this is possible, but takes time (and is how we end up with annual flu shots).

There's hundreds of ways the vaccines in the pipeline could go wrong. But you somehow decided to choose an argument which made zero sense.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>