Leaky valve is causing the enlarged heart, not the other way around, no?
Rahm just tested positive for Covid
- Thread starter GregInPitt
- Start date
The last I checked golf is played outside. Which I believe scientists have now said the chance of spreading it outside is very low, less than 1%.
Now I know they do go inside for locker room, turn in score card etc. I’m guessing just about everyone working the event had to be vaccinated, so I think they were safe.
I believe that as time passes on we (the general public) will realize that we more than likely overreacted to this virus.
Unfortunately, both sides politicized the handling of this Virus.
Now I know they do go inside for locker room, turn in score card etc. I’m guessing just about everyone working the event had to be vaccinated, so I think they were safe.
I believe that as time passes on we (the general public) will realize that we more than likely overreacted to this virus.
Unfortunately, both sides politicized the handling of this Virus.
I think that is a fair statement. Truth lags legend in most cases. It was proven that the virus is almost impossible to spread on hard surfaces a year ago. yet, here we are cleaning hard surfaces every few minutes. The CDC stated that 3 feet social distancing is as good as six feet yet, in most cases, six feet was still being enforced.
But in the case of Rahm, them's the rules. As a kid working in a large computer company, I had an argument with my boss because he was bustin me on some data from a report. The report was wrong. He said, "Oblie, the report may be right or the report may be wrong. but it is the report which is used to run the company". The PGA needs to reconsider the rule but under the circumstances, they had no choice. Rahm should have been vaxxed, he had plenty of opportunities. Its like a golfer complaining about getting a bad lie in the ruff. You don't want bad lies, don't hit it into the ruff. To Rahm's credit, he isn't complaining.
Really? WTF? Because he didn't succumb to coercion to take a drug he might not have needed for several reasons, he "got exactly what he deserved" here? Deserved!?
"He knew the rules and understood the risk he took," I could see as a reasonable take, but he "got exactly what he deserved?!" What did he do to "deserve" this??
That's 100% false. He PCR tested positive. That is absolutely not a diagnosis as having (being infected with) the disease. I don't blame you, 1300 -- you're just repeating what you heard on the news -- but it's this kind of misinformation that created such a mess out of something that didn't have to be such a mess.
Does she know the potential long-term effects of Covid? Is she concerned about being asymptomatic and spreading it to others now or at her wedding and potentially increasing the liklihiood of a new variant?
This is fantastic science going on here. Like nothing else affects a menstrual cycle. Unreal you posted that. hahaha
Let's face it Bob. Some of us miss Bushwood and his many iterations and incarnations. I loved it when he'd come back with a new handle and act positive, polite and collegial ... until he just couldn't take it anymore and go off the rails. 21guns is holding up well in his new iteration. I think he wants to survive this time.
Last edited:
Not to stir the pot but why should this young woman be responsible for the health of others given the fact the vaccine is now out and readily available to anyone who wants it? Wouldn’t that responsibility fall on those who are at risk and worried about contracting Covid? Before the vaccine was available to all I could see your point.
This continued discussion about having to still protect others while the vaccine is available is getting tiresome (nationally I mean, not directed at you Harry).
Information indicates Rahm got his first vaccination during the week, good intentions but a little too late for what he had to deal with. People insure their cars, life, businesses, etc. He got his insurance a little too late.
Agree, getting old fast. Anyone that comes down with Covid now only has to look in the mirror to assign blame.
The other part I don't understand is why some are saying it was developed way too fast. My question: so science was suppose to take their time when some of our hospitals were at a breaking point and hundreds of thousands of people were dying ? Well. I do get it.....some are locked into their initial thoughts and won't admit they might be wrong even if hit with all kinds of evidence.
Is the vaccine perfect ? No, probably not. But it is the reason we're coming out of this thing and we'll be able to watch CF this Fall.
Good post but I'd like to address the part I boldened.
I don't think anyone is saying that. There have been no long-term studies. Why? We haven't had them long-term. Just two weeks ago they came out and said that the vaccines appear to be good for about a year. But before that were estimated three months. They really don't know. It made complete sense to get the high-risk vaxxed. But for low risk? It is a valid argument.
I read last month that, so far, the vax has fewer side effects than the polio vaxxine. However, more kids (under age 17) are being hospitalized for vax side effects, than COVID.
But I do agree that the notion that you MUST GET VAXXED TO PROTECT OTHERS is no longer valid because the "others" have all been, or had the access to, be vaxxed themselves.
Do you know the potential long term affects of the "vaccine"? That's a rhetorical question.
With all due respect, Harry, you need to turn off the news, CNN, or wherever you're getting this fear-mongering disguised as information.
1. Between the existing science/understanding of similar viruses, and nearly 1.5 years worth of data on this one, yes, we do have a pretty good idea of the minimal to non-existent long-term effects of Covid. These new types of vaccines? While yes we probably have enough scientific understanding to say they are *most likely safe* in the long term, with literally no data on that, there has to be more confidence in our knowledge of the long term effects of Covid vs these new vaccines.
2. Asymptomatic spread, wut? Are you actually unaware that the hypothesis of asymptomatic spread never actually turned out to be a thing? I thought everyone knew that by now, but in case you don't know, you can relax on that. It never turned out to be real (just like as is the case with all other respiratory viruses). Asymptomatic spread is not a thing. That's well known at this point.
3. Variants... {sigh} Yes, it's technically possible that a more deadly/virulent variant could get a foothold, but generally speaking, variants are how viruses like this evolve to be LESS virulent. Natural selection applies to viruses as well, and success for a virus is most tied to transmission and not being harmful to its hosts. This is how the spanish flu that killed millions of people at one point evolved to be just another seasonal flu virus.
So, yes, on a micro level, we want to keep an eye on known variants for a few different reasons. But on a macro level -- in general -- not only shouldn't we fear variants, we should welcome them. They are the path to this virus becoming something we never think about again.
Huh? I have no idea what that is supposed to mean in the context of it being a question to me. Herd immunity is what it is, and it seems to be working out quite well (as expected).
I would add that normal established protocols for clinical trials were suspended for the development of these vaccines which gained EMERGENCY use authorization (normally reserved for patients in late stage disease progression) after phase 3 (of 4 phases by the way) results.
It was done fast, for a reason, approved for emergency use, and did not have to follow long established clinical trial protocols. It may be safe with respect to long term complications, we just have no means of knowing that right now. This has never been done before in this manner and at this speed in the entire history of pharmaceutical development and clinical trials.
This is why I look at it as necessary for elderly and high risk multiple comorbidity population but a legitimate risk-reward decision for everyone else. When your risk from COVID is 0.0000X % then you really can't determine whether the vaccine is more or less risk but it sure as heck isn't absolutely necessary.
Agree with the majority of your points - not here to argue. But yes, we don't know the long term effects of the vaccine - agree 100% - but the same can be said about younger people that have contracted Covid and are basically showing no extreme symptoms - for now. This damn thing latches on to the lungs and heart big-time - in ways we haven't seen before - and who knows what will happen long term to some of our younger people - including my grandson who had it and believe me, I'm worried about him long term. Had some breathing problems but who knows what will transpire down the road ?
I guess my point is that if we're going to point out the future unknowns of the vaccine, we also need to possibly think of the future unknowns of the this damn pandemic which could be far, far worse down the road - especially lung and heart problems. I pray that isn't the case - especially since my grandson - who'm I'm very close to - could be one of the vulnerable ones down the road
A lot of young men are having heart related issues from vaccine complications. This may be much more damaging than a asymptomatic COVID positive bout. Just something to consider.
fair enough....all things being equal I like natural....natural suggests evolving and that suggests advancement without unexpected consequences.
I see.
Please provide your credible sources supporting 0% asymptomatic spread.
Yes, best to not look out for one another. I mean that's worked in the past, right?
I didn't say 0%. I said it's not a thing -- as in, not a driver of community spread.
Because of the unclear/subjective line between asymptomatic and symptomatic, you'll never be able to do a study and find it to be 0%. But what is clear is that without symptoms, compared to with symptoms, transmitting the virus -- especially in community settings -- is very unlikely.
This is in stark contrast to what "experts" thought and were warning about a year ago.
I have no issue looking out for one another. People just shouldn’t be forced or shamed into doing something to their body they aren’t comfortable doing.
At what point does responsibility shift to the individual to take care of themselves when all options are available?
agreed...that is why it comes down to an individual choice:
- People with some kind of physical deficiency
- older people that might have a problem with the side affects that could kill them
- people who do not have easy access to covid shot locations
- people who are very rural who's chance of getting COVID is very low (Alaskan Bush People, for example)
- Young people that are having almost no problems with COVID.
Why is it that you always ignore and leave out "pre-symptomatic" out of the discussion? It IS a driver of community spread and you wouldn't know the difference between it and an asymptomatic carrier while someone is a spreader.
Last edited:
OP said "asymptomatic" spread. No doubt he listened to the media/bureaucracy idiots that told him so.
But your point is right - there is a difference between pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic.
Don’t see any nonsense there such as the pandemic being pretty much over in may of 2020
yes...but only for a time. Pre-symptomatic means that the patient gets symptoms. And, of course, at that point they know that they are sick....and, at that point, would be contagious and would take themselves out of public interaction. The point still stands, if the person does not have symptoms and isn't firing off droplets of liquid containing COVID, they are far less likely to infect someone else.
You're wrong, asymptomatic and presymptomatic spread combined account for ~50% of all spread (asym is a very low portion of that)
Because:
1) The poster to which I responded referred to asymptomatic spread. Take it up with him. The fact is, early on in this pandemic, public health and the media were leading everyone to believe that people could become infected, walk around living life for days spreading the virus, and never realize they were infected and and spreading it. We now know that's not true.
Regarding presymptomatic, yes, everyone knows there could be a short sliver of time right before your symptoms are realized when you could be contagious. That's common knowledge because we all know that's how the flu, and common colds work too.
The fact that the poster to which I responded expressed the concern as "being asymptomatic and spreading it to others" clearly indicates he's referring to the asymptomatic spread idea that blew up (and has since fizzled and died) early on in the pandemic.
2) Obviously presymptomitic would be a bigger contributer than asymptomatic (since presymptomatic is at least a real thing), but what is your source indicating it to be a significant driver of community spread?
All spread? Or community spread?
Either way, where are you getting that number?
I would expect presymptomatic to be a relatively significant contributor to spread in the home, but considerably less so in the community (and also harder to track and study in the community).
iirc... I've posted the study in a response to you in the past (I guess you weren't paying attention lol), here it is again.
SARS-CoV-2 Transmission From People Without COVID-19 Symptoms
This decision analytical model assesses the proportion of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmissions in the community that likely occur from persons without symptoms.
jamanetwork.com
