Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Didn't really have an expectation one way or the other. But she is still a public figure, and I would prefer she encourage people to be vaccinated.
not bashing you, honest... but this says a lot about our country.. that we would make medical decisions based on political public figures or any public figures for that matter... I take medical advise from my doctor, not any one else...
Wouldn't logic say that she put her business out there?
Personally, I don't care whether she or her family (or anyone else) has the vaccine. But for her to seek out media attention (trust me, nobody was beating down her door to find out if Sarah Palin took the vaccine), don't cry "worry about you". She basically invited the drama.
The extreme right has to break this cycle of constantly being the victim. It's not a good look to always appear weak.
Wouldn't logic say that she put her business out there?
Personally, I don't care whether she or her family (or anyone else) has the vaccine. But for her to seek out media attention (trust me, nobody was beating down her door to find out if Sarah Palin took the vaccine), don't cry "worry about you". She basically invited the drama.
The extreme right has to break this cycle of constantly being the victim. It's not a good look to always appear weak.
I believe the left is just as guilty, if not even more so.
There are people in this world who feel the need to interject themselves in the news cycle. Narcissism? Loneliness? Feeling of being irrelevant? No longer the "shiny new toy"?
I can guarantee there's not a soul in this entire world who has uttered the words "I wonder what Sarah Palin's opinion is on the vaccine".
Her five minutes of fame have long been up, but she's trying really hard to be relevant, for some weird reason.
This is America, take the vaccine or don't. I'm not losing sleep either way.
Or any celebrities, social justice warriors, rioters, protesters, boycotts…… or even politicians.
I believe the left is just as guilty, if not even more so.
The left, as a whole? I would disagree there. Subsets of "the left", oh absolutely.
The extreme right, however, makes its rallying cry how they are perpetually the victims. The "mainstream media" is always out to get them. Hollywood is out to get them. The liberals are out to get them. It's a sad, sad look. At some point do they ever get tired of playing the victim?
Do they think it's a good way to attract people when you say you're the victim but can never seem to find a way to overcome it?
This thread is a prime example - Sarah Palin gives the opinion nobody asked for and the response is don't pick on poor Sarah Palin, stop butting into her business. Always, ALWAYS the victim here.
Sorry, but making that assumption is a big mistake. Not only are people catching it more than once, sometimes it kills on the second infection.
I see that many people are confused about this.
I hope you are being sarcastic. It's hard to tell.
Some have noticed that the virus is hitting the red hatted brigade particularly hard, and wonder aloud whether the Democrats are using reverse psychology to harm them!
This is a frank admission that red hatters are often stubbornly doing the opposite of whatever the Democrats would presumably want them to do, and if the Democrats were against the vaccine, the red hatters would be stubbornly for it.
There's still a lot we don't know about reinfection. I periodically check for any updated info on numbers, but it's not that easy. See below for a reason as to why we don't know with any clarity.
Quote:
Currently, viral sequence with significant divergence between the first and second episode offers the strongest laboratory evidence for reinfection. Given that prolonged virus shedding of up to 2-months after initial infection has been reported and, in consideration of a possible relapse and virus shedding, significant divergence in viral sequences is considered as strong evidence to distinguish COVID-19 infection between the two episodes. However, in frontline clinical settings, a simple and effective criterion is required to rapidly diagnose reinfection cases. While secondary to viral genetic evidence, supportive evidence for reinfection including clinical and epidemiological criteria, together with laboratory evidence, should be incorporated in the diagnosis algorithm for COVID-19 reinfection. In this context, some “reinfection” cases have been reported in Japan [40,41] but as there were limited laboratory data as to whether these were cases of reinfection or viral relapse, the incidence rate of re-infection could not be determined. Due to the lack of the systematic available criteria for reinfection, there is an urgent need to clarify the criteria for re-infection. Further understanding of COVID-19 protective immunity, real-time surveillance directed at identifying COVID-19 transmission patterns and clinical implications of reinfection would be important in addressing the challenges in definition of COVID-19 reinfection and understanding the true disease burden.
So, it seems that there isn't a standard definition of reinfection, but that there's also a problem with determining whether reports of reinfection are actually new infections, or continued shedding.
The whole report is lengthy, and I'll admit I couldn't grasp the entire thing. I did find this interesting as well, in terms of protection against reinfection. A few posters here keep claiming naturally-acquired immunity isn't as good as vaccinated immunity. This says otherwise.
Quote:
Much attention has been drawn to long-term immunity against reinfection, particularly in the risk factors to reinfection and the role of protective immunity in reinfection [33]. Due to the immunological heterogeneity among SARS-CoV-2 patients during the acute phase [34] and convalescent phase [35], there remains a need to determine a proxy of protective immunity for SARS-CoV-2 infection. A majority of COVID-19 patients (95%) possessed immunological memory with at least three immunological compartments; memory B cell, CD4+ T cell and CD8+ T cell during the convalescent phase at six to eight months post-onset that was assessed in 43 samples [34,35]. As such, the possibility of reinfection at 6-months interval period has been hypothesized to be infrequent, especially among the patients with mild symptoms. It has been hypothesized that previous infection reduced the odds of a second infection by at least 75% [aOR 0.17 with (95% CI of 0.13 to 0.24)], in a large multi-center prospective cohort study for reinfection conducted in the UK [31], in which 44 reinfection cases were detected with interventional period of 90 days or more (2 probable cases with confirmed genome sequencing) among a positive cohort with 6614 participants; 318 new PCR-positives were detected among a negative cohort 14,173 participants. One study conducted in the USA showed protection against reinfection was 81.8% (95% confidence interval 76.6 to 85.8) [36]. Another study in Denmark demonstrated that protection against reinfection was at 80.5% (95% CI 75.4–84.5) for those aged 65 years and older, and observed protection was 47.1% (95% CI 24.7–62.8) [37].
Yet OP was all too happy to start a thread on her comments.
Oh sorry luv , thought it was an open forum
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
