Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OT: Rolovich out at WSU for refusing to get vaccinated

Collapse

Support The Site!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by GorillaTeacher View Post

    I would speculate as well, that the likelier a Virus is to transmit, which we know with COVID-19 is much more likely to transmit, the less effective vaccine efficacy is. In general.
    I wonder how the mutations effected the efficacy. Additionally, I wonder what the roll out looked like compared to the polio, measles, and mumps vaccines. I recently read an article that said there was virtually no hesitancy in the 1950's when the polio vaccine was introduced; however it wasn't politicized, and it's perceived dangers were much higher, especially since affected kids. But I can't imagine distribution systems were what they are today.
    Cool Story Bro

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by the tav View Post

      Efficacy rates of other vaccines

      Polio efficacy 99%
      Measles. 96%
      Mumps. 90%

      Pfizer/BioNTech Covid vaccine is 84% as of Today. Bottom line 84% is pretty effective. Even after being initially at 96% when released.
      I believe I remember reading that Moderna is even more effective at 93%.

      It is a simple math problem.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by GorillaTeacher View Post

        I would speculate as well, that the likelier a Virus is to transmit, which we know with COVID-19 is much more likely to transmit, the less effective vaccine efficacy is. In general.
        Good speculation. I will run that by Fauci the next time I talk to him.

        Comment


        • #64
          Some of you know my health situation and some don't. When I say that I have one of the best medical teams in the world, I can honestly say that I am not exaggerating. When the guy considered the best physician in the world for his specialty looks you in the eyes and says, "I'm going to tell you what I have told members of Congress, different heads of state and even royalty. Get the vaccine. It's not perfect, but no vaccine is. And it gives you a much better chance of survival." Well, when he says that, you get the vaccine.

          Comment


          • #65
            Good article from ESPN about the events leading up to Rolovich's firing, starting in July or so. This was the part that really caught my attention:

            "On April 21, Rolovich was granted an audience with Dr. Guy Palmer, a world-renowned WSU regents professor of pathology and infectious diseases...
            Over about an hour, Rolovich drove a conversation that focused on topics that were consistent with what Palmer said has been shared by the 'anti-vax crowd on social media' over the past several years.
            'Kind of typical ones: Is Bill Gates involved with the vaccines? Does [Gates] hold a patent on the vaccines?" Palmer recalled to ESPN. "He asked whether SV40 is in the vaccines and whether that could be a dangerous thing. And the answer to that is no.'"

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Runnin' Cat View Post

              There has been no vaccine developed that has 100% efficacy. So your statement applies to every vaccine developed. Ever.

              Vaccines work more effectively as the number of people in a population get vaccinated. It is simple math.
              Exactly, there was plenty of documented cases of breakthrough infections with smallpox vaccines, but they usually lead to the patient having a much milder case, and it was harder for them to spread it to someone else, as they usually didn't have that high of a viral load that they was putting out there, and they usually recovered quicker.

              Comment


              • #67
                I've been reading some more on this in regards to personal and religious exemptions. If it is indeed based on the fetal cell lines then I wonder if those who are using that as their reason also do not use any of the following medications that were developed using similar research: acetaminophen, albuterol, aspirin, ibuprofen, Tylenol, Pepto Bismol, Tums, Lipitor, Senokot, Motrin, Maalox, Ex-Lax, Benadryl, Sudafed, Preparation H, Claritin, Prilosec, and Zoloft.

                These are just some of the most common medications. I am sure there are many more.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by NWHoops View Post
                  I've been reading some more on this in regards to personal and religious exemptions. If it is indeed based on the fetal cell lines then I wonder if those who are using that as their reason also do not use any of the following medications that were developed using similar research: acetaminophen, albuterol, aspirin, ibuprofen, Tylenol, Pepto Bismol, Tums, Lipitor, Senokot, Motrin, Maalox, Ex-Lax, Benadryl, Sudafed, Preparation H, Claritin, Prilosec, and Zoloft.

                  These are just some of the most common medications. I am sure there are many more.
                  I'm pro vaccine but get a grip. Acetaminophen was invented in 1878, aspirin 1897, Tums 1928, Pseudoephedrine (sudafed) 1920's, Preparation H 1935- originally a sunburn oil.
                  All of these were before the use of fetal cell's in research in the 1930's. Also, how similar is the research of the COVID vaccine and pepto bismol?

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by LeftSider View Post

                    I'm pro vaccine but get a grip. Acetaminophen was invented in 1878, aspirin 1897, Tums 1928, Pseudoephedrine (sudafed) 1920's, Preparation H 1935- originally a sunburn oil.
                    All of these were before the use of fetal cell's in research in the 1930's. Also, how similar is the research of the COVID vaccine and pepto bismol?
                    https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid...cine-exemption

                    https://www.beckershospitalreview.co...exemption.html

                    Interesting quote: "I understand why people have concerns," James Lawler, MD, the expert, who is a practicing Catholic, told the news station. "The bottom line is almost all the medical products we use have in some way been touched by research that's been done on fetal cell lines."

                    I'm not a medical professional but I'm pretty sure you can develop a medication and then when there is new testing available you can test the medication with the new techniques. My summarization may have missed a bit by saying "developed using similar research" instead of saying "developed and/or tested using similar research". There are lots of articles about this particular situation but a simple Google search can provide more info. It's not just medicine either. Some foods and cosmetics also test using fetal cell lines. I think it is more prevalent than most people know.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by NWHoops View Post


                      I'm not a medical professional but I'm pretty sure you can develop a medication and then when there is new testing available you can test the medication with the new techniques. My summarization may have missed a bit by saying "developed using similar research" instead of saying "developed and/or tested using similar research". There are lots of articles about this particular situation but a simple Google search can provide more info. It's not just medicine either. Some foods and cosmetics also test using fetal cell lines. I think it is more prevalent than most people know.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Runnin' Cat View Post

                        Haha, for sure! Who knows for sure anymore but I haven't seen a single medical source dispute the claims. I put it out there and let others use their own critical thinking skills to see how much weight they want to put in it.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by NWHoops View Post

                          Haha, for sure! Who knows for sure anymore but I haven't seen a single medical source dispute the claims. I put it out there and let others use their own critical thinking skills to see how much weight they want to put in it.
                          Glad you saw the humor. I have a friend that is a Googler and is always sending me links to support his version of things in spite of an expert that directly tells him his theories are wrong.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Rolovich has appealed his firing to the WSU athletic director. If his appeal fails he'll have a chance to take it to the university president, and he only plans on suing if the president agrees with the AD.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Should it be noted that right now WSU is second in the Pac-12 North at 4-2 in conference and 1-0 without Rollovich in conference? Their only loss without him was 21-19 hosting #15 BYU. Their biggest game of the year outside of the Apple Cup is a week from tomorrow at Oregon and if the miracle happens and they win out they would be in the Pac-12 title game. That would make the coaching situation even more interesting and if they'd even want Rollovich back, look for a new coach, or keep their interim coach.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Jake Dickert has his interim tag removed and is now permanently the head coach on a new five-year deal.

                                https://komonews.com/amp/sports/coll...-dickert-coach

                                Comment

                                Ad3

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X