Twins Make Multiple Vaccination-Related Roster Moves

[BobAzar]

14 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

And of course taking away individual choice has never led to anything bad in all of human history.

Im not talking about taking away personal choice, I'm saying that their argument doesnt hold water. 

[mnfireman]

7 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

Both the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines have had full FDA approval for adults since January and August, respectively. You can't say that for any other COVID treatments.

Better do your research. They are approved for emergency use only.

[a-wan]

Yeah what do the American Medical Association, American Nurses Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, Association of American Medical Colleges, National Association for Home Care and Hospice, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine know? I don't trust their recommendation for vaccination.

And the likelihood of post COVID infection myocarditis causing sudden cardiac arrest is exponentially higher than post vaccination. 

And both mRNA vaccinations for adults have FULL approval.

Unless you've had a severe allergic reaction to the mRNA vaccination almost every should be vaccinated. That is medical fact.

[DJL44]

3 minutes ago, mnfireman said:

Better do your research. They are approved for emergency use only.

Not according to the FDA's own press release.

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Takes Key Action by Approving Second COVID-19 Vaccine | FDA

[2wins87]

7 minutes ago, mnfireman said:

You don't know that for sure. The "vaccines" are new, were rushed into production and there have been several reported cases of cardiac arrests and other heart/health problems in athletes. 

The long-term effects won't be known for another 5-10 years.

There are cardiac complications associated with getting COVID as well.  Here is a Link to a report on a study in particular looking at cardiac arrest in the period before vaccines were available.

I can't speak to all potential side effects, but many of the potential bad outcomes that have been associated with the vaccines are much more likely to occur from getting COVID itself.  The risk calculation shouldn't be whether there is any tiny chance of an adverse effect from the vaccine but whether it will lower your overall risk of having adverse health effects (including getting COVID). Not to mention whether getting it will reduce the risk of bad health outcomes to those around you.

I don't begrudge anyone for making decisions that they think are right. But I don't believe the evidence taken as a whole supports the decision not to get vaccinated for the vast majority. I don't really expect to change anyone's mind, but I would hope people would take the effort to learn about all of the risks, not just those associated with the vaccine. And also consider that we don't know any more about the long term effects of COVID than we do about the vaccine.

[Cap'n Piranha]

15 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

This year, those entering Canada are subject to random testing as well as a vaccine requirement. Many countries, not just Canada, have vaccine requirements. Some are lifting them. Last year the vaccines were just rolling out so they didn't have a requirement at the border. They do as of January. It's another country. They get to do what they want no matter how unfair it seems to some.

Of course Canada is free to do whatever they want.  That doesn't mean inconsistencies in the logic can't be pointed out.  If the goal is to prevent the spread of Covid in Canada initiated by incoming people, requiring a negative test from everyone is a far stronger process than (in all likelihood) minimal testing for those who have received a shot.  A person who has not gotten the shot, but is also negative for Covid, is much less of a risk to spread Covid than a person who has gotten the shot, but is also positive for Covid.  That's in no way debatable.

[Cap'n Piranha]

13 minutes ago, BobAzar said:

Im not talking about taking away personal choice, I'm saying that their argument doesnt hold water. 

Your argument is that their rationale for not getting the shot, namely personal choice, is invalid.  I'm saying it is a dangerous step to invalidate the personal choices of others when those personal choices do not impact you.

[BobAzar]

1 minute ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Your argument is that their rationale for not getting the shot, namely personal choice, is invalid.  I'm saying it is a dangerous step to invalidate the personal choices of others when those personal choices do not impact you.

but they DO impact other people. because viruses are contagious. So, Im saying in matters of public health, sometimes personal choice gets trumped for the greater good. like how we give up personal choices of driving where and when we want, and agree on stopping at red lights. 

[Cap'n Piranha]

9 minutes ago, a-wan said:

Yeah what do the American Medical Association, American Nurses Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, Association of American Medical Colleges, National Association for Home Care and Hospice, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine know? I don't trust their recommendation for vaccination.

And the likelihood of post COVID infection myocarditis causing sudden cardiac arrest is exponentially higher than post vaccination. 

And both mRNA vaccinations for adults have FULL approval.

Unless you've had a severe allergic reaction to the mRNA vaccination almost every should be vaccinated. That is medical fact.

Saying it's medical fact is a bit of a stretch, as long-term consequences (if there are any) are unknown.  The data clearly shows that Covid is not a serious risk to young, healthy people without any underlying medical conditions.  I would imagine most doctors would recommend against taking medication that is not needed, and the fact is that for millions under the age of 30, or even 40, Covid is far less concerning than multiple other activities engaged in with regularity.

Now, if you want to amend to say that unless you've had a severe allergic reaction to the mRNA shot, every person who is elderly, immune compromised, or has comorbidities should get the shot, I would wholeheartedly agree.

[Squirrel]

11 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Of course Canada is free to do whatever they want.  That doesn't mean inconsistencies in the logic can't be pointed out.  If the goal is to prevent the spread of Covid in Canada initiated by incoming people, requiring a negative test from everyone is a far stronger process than (in all likelihood) minimal testing for those who have received a shot.  A person who has not gotten the shot, but is also negative for Covid, is much less of a risk to spread Covid than a person who has gotten the shot, but is also positive for Covid.  That's in no way debatable.

I don't know the whys and wherefores of Canada's law ... do you? Were you in Parliament that day? Or in Trudeau's office? Maybe on the surface it's inconsistent, but I don't know what they have based this on so I won't make a claim that is unfounded.

But many countries switched their entry policies from tests proving negative, followed by quarantines to vaccination requirements. Whether or not that is inconsistent, maybe it's changed based on more knowledge and more input from professionals, of which I am not one.

 

[Cap'n Piranha]

1 minute ago, BobAzar said:

but they DO impact other people. because viruses are contagious. So, Im saying in matters of public health, sometimes personal choice gets trumped for the greater good. like how we give up personal choices of driving where and when we want, and agree on stopping at red lights. 

Viral load in people who have received the shot is not meaningfully reduced compared to those who have not--here's a quote from the Lancet (full article link below).  "Nonetheless, fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections have peak viral load similar to unvaccinated cases and can efficiently transmit infection in household settings, including to fully vaccinated contacts"

As such, the greater good vis a vis reducing transmissibility of Covid is not improved by compelling shots.  Your shot does not protect me from getting Covid from you.  Your shot improves your chances of a better outcome should you contract Covid.

(sorry for the font change, it happened when I pasted the quotation).

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext#:~:text=Vaccination reduces the risk of,including to fully vaccinated contacts.

[2wins87]

6 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Of course Canada is free to do whatever they want.  That doesn't mean inconsistencies in the logic can't be pointed out.  If the goal is to prevent the spread of Covid in Canada initiated by incoming people, requiring a negative test from everyone is a far stronger process than (in all likelihood) minimal testing for those who have received a shot.  A person who has not gotten the shot, but is also negative for Covid, is much less of a risk to spread Covid than a person who has gotten the shot, but is also positive for Covid.  That's in no way debatable.

There is some room for debate about the efficacy of different measures, but there is still logic behind the vaccination requirement.  The point of the vaccine is to lower transmission rates. While visiting a country a person is going to be a part of the population.  As long as there is still some virus circulating in the population everyone is at risk of getting it and continuing the spread further. An unvaccinated (or less vaccinated) person will be a higher risk to the whole population.

Could they make a special rule for athletes who are undergoing routine testing anyway? Probably. Should they? I don't know, people don't generally like rules that are selective.

[RLTW894]

33 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

Both the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines have had full FDA approval for adults since January and August, respectively. You can't say that for any other COVID treatments.

Thanks for providing the info. I was behind with updates. I was also able to verify through FDA website that you are in fact right these have full approval now.

[Cap'n Piranha]

4 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

I don't know the whys and wherefores of Canada's law ... do you? Were you in Parliament that day? Or in Trudeau's office? Maybe on the surface it's inconsistent, but I don't know what they have based this on so I won't make a claim that is unfounded.

But many countries switched their entry policies from tests proving negative, followed by quarantines to vaccination requirements. Whether or not that is inconsistent, maybe it's changed based on more knowledge and more input from professionals, of which I am not one.

 

I don't know, but again, why does that prevent me from calling out a logical inconsistency in a governmental decision?  If Canada required that all people entering the country go through the process of bleeding by having leeches attached, would you accept that, since you weren't in parliament or Trudeau's office?  Canada has enacted a policy which allows people into the country without checking to see if they have Covid--I know because I visited Canada just last weekend.  Because I received a shot and was not selected for random testing, I was simply waved through.  For all Canada knows, I was positive for Covid, and spread it to multiple people. 

That is a change from last year when Canada required you to prove you didn't have Covid before they would let you enter without a quarantine phase.  If Canada's goal is to reduce the amount of individuals entering the country with Covid, using shot status as opposed to testing is a poor way to do that.  As such, denying entry to a person who has tested negative for Covid, but has not received a shot (which in no way precludes them from contracting or indeed spreading Covid) is entirely illogical, unless the goal is not to reduce the spread of Covid.  The amount to which our society has become willing to abandon logical thought and rational decision-making is staggering.

 

[Squirrel]

1 minute ago, 2wins87 said:

Could they make a special rule for athletes who are undergoing routine testing anyway? Probably. Should they? I don't know, people don't generally like rules that are selective.

Did I read somewhere that this is possible come playoff time? That special waivers may come into play?

 

[Squirrel]

3 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

I don't know, but again, why does that prevent me from calling out a logical inconsistency in a governmental decision?  If Canada required that all people entering the country go through the process of bleeding by having leeches attached, would you accept that, since you weren't in parliament or Trudeau's office?  Canada has enacted a policy which allows people into the country without checking to see if they have Covid--I know because I visited Canada just last weekend.  Because I received a shot and was not selected for random testing, I was simply waved through.  For all Canada knows, I was positive for Covid, and spread it to multiple people. 

That is a change from last year when Canada required you to prove you didn't have Covid before they would let you enter without a quarantine phase.  If Canada's goal is to reduce the amount of individuals entering the country with Covid, using shot status as opposed to testing is a poor way to do that.  As such, denying entry to a person who has tested negative for Covid, but has not received a shot (which in no way precludes them from contracting or indeed spreading Covid) is entirely illogical, unless the goal is not to reduce the spread of Covid.  The amount to which our society has become willing to abandon logical thought and rational decision-making is staggering.

 

Because it doesn't matter in the end. Truly. It just doesn't. It's what the law is, and we have no power to change it or affect it. And it leads the discussion into the weeds, imo. <shrug> 

So, what do you think of those being called up to replace those who are restricted?

[a-wan]

15 minutes ago, Cap&#x27;n Piranha said:

Saying it's medical fact is a bit of a stretch, as long-term consequences (if there are any) are unknown.  The data clearly shows that Covid is not a serious risk to young, healthy people without any underlying medical conditions.  I would imagine most doctors would recommend against taking medication that is not needed, and the fact is that for millions under the age of 30, or even 40, Covid is far less concerning than multiple other activities engaged in with regularity.

Now, if you want to amend to say that unless you've had a severe allergic reaction to the mRNA shot, every person who is elderly, immune compromised, or has comorbidities should get the shot, I would wholeheartedly agree.

No, everyone 5 and over should be vaccinated. All vaccines available in the United States are highly effective, substantially reduce the risk of COVID-19, especially severe/critical disease, and have been associated with substantial reductions in COVID-19-associated hospitalizations and deaths, even in the context of variants that partially evade vaccine-induced immune responses. In addition to direct reductions in COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality, vaccination has been associated with lower non-COVID-19 mortality rates, supporting evidence that COVID-19 vaccination does not increase the risk of death.

The only true contraindication is anaphylaxis to the previous mRNA shot 

[Cap'n Piranha]

3 minutes ago, 2wins87 said:

There is some room for debate about the efficacy of different measures, but there is still logic behind the vaccination requirement.  The point of the vaccine is to lower transmission rates. While visiting a country a person is going to be a part of the population.  As long as there is still some virus circulating in the population everyone is at risk of getting it and continuing the spread further. An unvaccinated (or less vaccinated) person will be a higher risk to the whole population.

Could they make a special rule for athletes who are undergoing routine testing anyway? Probably. Should they? I don't know, people don't generally like rules that are selective.

This is inaccurate.  See my post directly above yours.  As the Covid shot does not actually preclude one from contracting or spreading Covid, it is more accurately described as a preventative therapeutic (and a pretty effective one, at that).  Accordingly, assuming people who have received the Covid shot are less likely to contract or spread Covid is erroneous, and unscientific.  If the goal is truly to reduce the population of individuals with Covid in the country, screening for active cases at the border is a far more robust measure than denying entry to those without a shot, but by and large letting everyone with a shot in without examination.

[DJL44]

29 minutes ago, Cap&#x27;n Piranha said:

Of course Canada is free to do whatever they want. 

Canada also has universal healthcare. I'm sure they don't want unvaccinated people entering the country, getting sick and filling hospital beds there.

[puckstopper1]

Adding a post that is actually about baseball and not COVID or the vaccine...

Are the Saints going to be able to field a team with 4 more players taken from their roster?

[In My La Z boy]

stevekirsch.substack.com

He has been writing about this for a 18 months. I encourage everyone with the time and interest to consider reading this mans writings. You do not have to pay and can read for free. 

It was also the position of Canada to shut down citizens ability to access their bank accounts for certain behaviors. I agree with Max in that it is sad Canada has chosen to take this position.

 

[Cap'n Piranha]

3 minutes ago, a-wan said:

No, everyone 5 and over should be vaccinated. All vaccines available in the United States are highly effective, substantially reduce the risk of COVID-19, especially severe/critical disease, and have been associated with substantial reductions in COVID-19-associated hospitalizations and deaths, even in the context of variants that partially evade vaccine-induced immune responses. In addition to direct reductions in COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality, vaccination has been associated with lower non-COVID-19 mortality rates, supporting evidence that COVID-19 vaccination does not increase the risk of death.

The only true contraindication is anaphylaxis to the previous mRNA shot 

This is just not rooted in reality.  According to the CDC, there have been 1,086 Covid deaths in those 17 and under since the beginning the pandemic (for the sake of this, we'll assume that all of those were actually caused by Covid, even though it's entirely possible Covid was simply a comorbidity, and not the cause of death); that is in a population of 73M (according to Statista), which imputes a risk of death of 0.0014%--that's 14 in 1 Million--there's really not a whole lot of substantial room for reduction.  When you add in that VAERS has recorded 863 records of serious reactions to the shot, including 14 deaths, and that this data only covers the 12-17 age group, and only for the 12/14/20 to 7/16/21 timeframe, it is unclear how much better Covid shots are than just letting children get and recover from Covid, which they do extraordinarily well (and gain enhanced future infection protection to boot).

In contrast, there have been 81,532 all-cause deaths in the 17 and under age group since the beginning of the pandemic, which means a child 17 or under is 74 times as likely to die from something other than Covid as they are to die from Covid.  Further, while risk of death from Covid does increase in the twenties and thirties, even that is very low--there have been 39,649 deaths attributed to Covid since the beginning of the pandemic among the 39 and under group, which represents less than 4% of all Covid deaths, in a group that comprises 170.8M people; that is a 0.0023% chance, or 23 in 1 Million.  The all cause deaths in that group is 645,384, which means you are 15 times as likely to die from something other than Covid if under 40.  If you are under 40, are not immune compromised, and do not have underlying medical issues, I'm not saying don't get a shot.  I'm saying the odds are that you will be fine, and it is extremely likely you are engaging in other activity that is more likely to kill you than Covid.

https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-by-Sex-and-Age/9bhg-hcku/data

https://www.statista.com/statistics/241488/population-of-the-us-by-sex-and-age/

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e1.htm

[lecroy24fan]

As someone who went through COVID hell I can tell you that the vaccine might not work for everyone. I was fully vaccinated (2 shots at the time) and I still got it, in the words of the doctor at the hospital, "Worse than anyone I've seen that's been vaccinated." 2 weeks in the hospital. 

I got them because I felt it was the right thing to do. But i can't help but think it was a mistake. Even after I went through hell my mindset didn't change. Personal choice. So i have no issue with any athlete or anyone choosing not to be vaccinated.

[puckstopper1]

Well at least none of the claim the are "immunized"...

[Cap'n Piranha]

23 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

Canada also has universal healthcare. I'm sure they don't want unvaccinated people entering the country, getting sick and filling hospital beds there.

This seems to not be getting through to people.  Getting the Covid shot does not reduce the risk of contracting or spreading Covid.  While it will reduce the likelihood of needing medical care, both routine and life-saving, if the goal is to reduce the number of people with Covid, and to minimize the spread of Covid, a policy that completely bars healthy but non-jabbed people, while fully welcoming jabbed but potentially infected people is inane.  Unless of course, the goal is something else.

[2wins87]

7 minutes ago, Cap&#x27;n Piranha said:

This is inaccurate.  See my post directly above yours.  As the Covid shot does not actually preclude one from contracting or spreading Covid, it is more accurately described as a preventative therapeutic (and a pretty effective one, at that).  Accordingly, assuming people who have received the Covid shot are less likely to contract or spread Covid is erroneous, and unscientific.  If the goal is truly to reduce the population of individuals with Covid in the country, screening for active cases at the border is a far more robust measure than denying entry to those without a shot, but by and large letting everyone with a shot in without examination.

No, it's not inaccurate.  Vaccines have been shown to both reduce the likelihood of infection and reduce forward transmission to others in those who do get infected.  Just because they aren't perfect in those areas doesn't mean they don't work.

Here is some science: https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/news/20210722/gold-standard-study-mrna-vaccines-prevent-infection

https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o298

[tarheeltwinsfan]

I agree with Max Kepler when he said, It is very sad. that we can't go to Canada together as a team. Alas, if only you could do something about that Max....

[Craig Arko]

24 minutes ago, puckstopper1 said:

Adding a post that is actually about baseball and not COVID or the vaccine...

Are the Saints going to be able to field a team with 4 more players taken from their roster?

Depends on how many catchers they have left.  

[2wins87]

3 minutes ago, Craig Arko said:

Depends on how many catchers they have left.  

With Camargo's recent promotion, Wichita now has 5 guys on their roster who have handled some catching duties this year.  With a few promotions the Saints should easily be able to put 5 or 6 catchers on the field.

[jorgenswest]

Kikuchi is a lefty. Kepler likely would have been on the bench tonight. This would have been the game to help his legs recover.

Pagan pitched yesterday. May not have been available today. They have other arms in the pen to replace him.

The impact on tonight’s game seems minimal. Is Celestino back? Maybe he gets the key hit or scores the winning run. Maybe Hamilton has a clean inning or two midgame to bridge to the end. Theilbar? Does Toronto doesn’t have left handed bats to worry about? If they lose tonight it shouldn’t be on the unvaccinated.