Libs played politics with medicine, 500K died

mhosek

Sophomore
Gold Member
Dec 11, 2001
1,295
1,033
113
I already told you how you weren't consistent. In the Trump era, you were on here every week giving us Covid play-by-plays. After Biden was elected, not even been sworn in, you suspiciously went quiet on the Covid front, and gave one update afterward.
Concur^^^ same as MSM. Interesting how the narrative changes...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oldschool1964

sklarbodds

Administrator
Moderator
Nov 30, 2006
32,642
38,428
113
Why does it have emergency use then? They would have took more time if the situation didn’t call for it.
Rushed = they skipped steps they'd normally take for a vaccine or didn't follow the normal procedure in some way.

All phases of studies were completed, decades of research put into the delivery method.

EUA was used because after all the normal phases of trials were complete, the data was really outstanding and it was incredibly unlikely that something undiscovered would surface.

Now, 6 months later and more data than any other vaccine in history available at this point, we know that unlikelihood never surfaced and pfizer is on the brink of full approval.
 

nelsonj22

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2014
19,349
20,342
113
I always find it ironic that certain Trumpers go on and on about HCQ and how Trump invented the vaccine and is responsible for saving everybody.

Then in their next breath they say the Dems over reacted making everybody wear masks, shutting the country down and that the whole Coronavirus thing was a hoax.

I mean, pick one already.

Trumper: "Trump did a fantastic job green lighting the vaccine and getting it to market so quickly. Think about how many lives he saved!"

Dem: "Are you going to get the vaccine?"

Trumper: "Oh, of course not. It was rushed and not properly tested to be safe. The virus is overblown and nothing to worry about. The virus did not kill anybody it was a Dem hoax an that data was manipulated."
the trumpers right now are the crying dems of 16' down to the hyper-hypocritical BS
 
  • Like
Reactions: philosophusker

Cash68847

Head Coach
Gold Member
Dec 9, 2017
12,019
18,815
113
Rushed = they skipped steps they'd normally take for a vaccine or didn't follow the normal procedure in some way.

All phases of studies were completed, decades of research put into the delivery method.

EUA was used because after all the normal phases of trials were complete, the data was really outstanding and it was incredibly unlikely that something undiscovered would surface.

Now, 6 months later and more data than any other vaccine in history available at this point, we know that unlikelihood never surfaced and pfizer is on the brink of full approval.
We have a different view because it’s not just about trials. It’s about studying the data. This is the first time EUA has ever been put in place for an entire population. It was rushed out. Like I said it’s good for those who don’t care about longterm effects. If I was 70 and covid could take me out tomorrow I’m taking the vaccine because 5–10 years is better than dying from it in the near future. If I’m young I’m waiting to see more information.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Oldschool1964

Bobfather

Athletic Director
Gold Member
Oct 6, 2002
14,603
7,503
113
50
Romney or McCain would have won in a landslide against Hillary.
You are delusional as the drive by Pravda would have worked overdrive to destroy their enemy just like they are working overdrive to pump up support for Bidophile who actually makes Jimmy Carter look competent!
 

madbird

Offensive Coordinator
Gold Member
Nov 30, 2004
8,442
5,145
113
Trump should have insisted HCQ was used then. He was President. He didn't and 500,000 died. Ipso Facto Trump murdered 500,000.

Wonder why Trump didn't take HCQ when he himself caught the 'Rona?
The Trump hatred runs deep in this one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: burntorange72

mhosek

Sophomore
Gold Member
Dec 11, 2001
1,295
1,033
113
Romney or McCain would have won in a landslide against Hillary.
Lol False. Huge and growing % of registered Pubs won’t vote for an establishment candidate. See ‘Trump, Donald J’...
Pub candidates give lip service to the anti-DC/establishment crowd during their primary elections and get swallowed by the Swamp and disappear into obscurity. Trump had a mandate for a couple years to disassemble the Machine and was stymied, utterly and completely, by his own party.
 

nelsonj22

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2014
19,349
20,342
113
Show me any conservative crying during Biden’s inauguration. I mean, other than the RINOs crying tears of joy.
all of you guys on here daily since the 4th, you might think you hide it but you don't
 

philosophusker

Athletic Director
Gold Member
Jan 16, 2004
15,112
18,300
113
Jonesboro, Arkansas (York, NE originally)
I’ll help you think about this in the correct way. You can see there is a Grand Canyon-size chasm between both of these if you think about it in the response to the crisis. Trump went to work to fast-track a vaccine. The Democrats decided to take advantage of the situation to scare the populace to wear masks and lock down because <1% of you might die. They over-reacted and under-delivered to a virus that we now know, they invented. Trump was all about solutions, Femocrats were all about control.
So is the virus a hoax or is it something that killed 500,000 people but could have been 2 million were it not for the fast action of Super Trump?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: stevehammer

Cash68847

Head Coach
Gold Member
Dec 9, 2017
12,019
18,815
113
Lol False. Huge and growing % of registered Pubs won’t vote for an establishment candidate. See ‘Trump, Donald J’...
Pub candidates give lip service to the anti-DC/establishment crowd during their primary elections and get swallowed by the Swamp and disappear into obscurity. Trump had a mandate for a couple years to disassemble the Machine and was stymied, utterly and completely, by his own party.
Yes, it’s pretty obvious the Trump vote was a **** you vote to the establishment. Romney and McCain couldn’t move the needle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: countrybob

Cash68847

Head Coach
Gold Member
Dec 9, 2017
12,019
18,815
113
Damn straight. If everyone hated Trump as much as I do this country would be in a much better place.

Your problem is you DON'T hate Trump. Trump conned you, and you bend over and say "Thank you sir can I have another?"
We would be in about the same place either way. You partisans put too much into who the President is.
 

sklarbodds

Administrator
Moderator
Nov 30, 2006
32,642
38,428
113
You are delusional as the drive by Pravda would have worked overdrive to destroy their enemy just like they are working overdrive to pump up support for Bidophile who actually makes Jimmy Carter look competent!
I don't really like Biden. I've said that repeatedly. How does that pump him up?
 
  • Like
Reactions: nelsonj22

damcde

All-American
Gold Member
Oct 22, 2007
4,554
8,641
113
Why does it have emergency use then? They would have took more time if the situation didn’t call for it.

The trials have to go for 6 months for the FDA to consider full approval. They went 3 months before they asked for approval. Given the very very small likelyhood of there being any side effects, the FDA granted Emergency Use Authorization after the 3 months. The vaccine technology still went under the decades of preliminary research data that has been done with most other vaccines. Viral vectors have been used in labs for several decades. mRNA technology has been making waves in science for the last decade. There was a paper in 2018 talking about them being the way of the future for vaccines.

They went through clinical trials just like other vaccines did. In fact both technologies had successful phase I trials even before COVID, which allowed them to combine the Phase I/II trials. They just were approved a few months earlier than normal.

That said, Pfizer last month and Moderna just last week applied for full approval now that they both have gone the 6 months. So in a month or two we likely will have both having full approval.

 
Last edited:

philosophusker

Athletic Director
Gold Member
Jan 16, 2004
15,112
18,300
113
Jonesboro, Arkansas (York, NE originally)
We would be in about the same place either way. You partisans put too much into who the President is.
Probably. Can't really disagree. But I don't think it is a partisan thing for me. After all, Trump isn't a politician, remember?

As a matter of fact, one of the only good things Trump has done is make me like regular Republicans a lot more. I think George Bush and Mitt Romney are friggen awesome now, compared to Trump.

But I hated Donald Trump long before he was President, and I will hate him long after he is dead. It's my prerogative.

I hate him because he is a con man and has spent his entire life screwing over poor folks for his own personal gain. He is a shyster and deserves to be in prison. This is a man who dodged Vietnam, and then said this about a Vietnam War POW: "I like people who weren't captured." At least McCain was there in the first place you insufferable orange prick.

My hate for bone spurs has very little to do with him being president, other than the fact that he now has half the country believing in wild conspiracy election fraud theories. Trump has caused possible irreparable damage to a significant portion of the population's trust in our democratic process. And Trump HATES the very same people who elected him. He loves their praise and attention at rallies. He loves their votes and money. But he does not want them within 100 miles of Mara Lago.
 
Last edited:

Cash68847

Head Coach
Gold Member
Dec 9, 2017
12,019
18,815
113
Probably. Can't really disagree. But I don't think it is a partisan thing for me. After all, Trump isn't a politician, remember?

As a matter of fact, one of the only good things Trump has done is make me like regular Republicans a lot more. I think George Bush and Mitt Romney are friggen awesome now, compared to Trump.

But I hated Donald Trump long before he was President, and I will hate him long after he is dead. It's my prerogative.

I hate him because he is a con man and has spent his entire life screwing over poor folks for his own personal gain. He is a shyster and deserves to be in prison. This is a man who dodged Vietnam, and then said this about a Vietnam War POW: "I like people who weren't captured." At least McCain was there in the first place you insufferable orange prick.

My hate for bone spurs has very little to do with him being president, other than the fact that he now has half the country believing in wild conspiracy election fraud theories. Trump has caused possible irreparable damage to a significant portion of the population's trust in our democratic process. And Trump HATES the very same people who elected him. He loves their praise and attention at rallies. He loves their votes and money. But he does not want them within 100 miles of Mara Lago.
I’ll take Trump any day over Bush. Bush ****ed this country up way worse. Going into Iraq screwed up so many things while costing a lot of innocent lives and the guy even can joke about it. Trump one good thing by eviscerating the Bush and Clinton dynasty. It was also funny to see him bitch slap Jeb around.
 

sklarbodds

Administrator
Moderator
Nov 30, 2006
32,642
38,428
113
I’ll take Trump any day over Bush. Bush ****ed this country up way worse. Going into Iraq screwed up so many things while costing a lot of innocent lives and the guy even can joke about it. Trump one good thing by eviscerating the Bush and Clinton dynasty. It was also funny to see him bitch slap Jeb around.
I'm not a huge Bush fan no freaking way would I take him over Trump.
 

stevehammer

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
Sep 18, 2001
5,725
6,078
113
More complete idiocy from Trumpers. How can you look at that utter fraud and think, "I respect him, I want him to lead me."? He's rich kid whose daddy gave him nearly a billion dollars, who has never had to work hard a day in his life, who lies constantly, who would likely be clinically diagnosed as a malignant narcissist, who assaults women and has actually been caught on tape bragging about it, who often ****ed over subcontractors on his projects (hundreds of them have come out with stories of this), and who is a total loser.

He's pathetic. He's always been pathetic. He's been a punchline since the freaking 1980s. How can you look at him and think anything positive?
 

mhosek

Sophomore
Gold Member
Dec 11, 2001
1,295
1,033
113
More complete idiocy from Trumpers. How can you look at that utter fraud and think, "I respect him, I want him to lead me."? He's rich kid whose daddy gave him nearly a billion dollars, who has never had to work hard a day in his life, who lies constantly, who would likely be clinically diagnosed as a malignant narcissist, who assaults women and has actually been caught on tape bragging about it, who often ****ed over subcontractors on his projects (hundreds of them have come out with stories of this), and who is a total loser.

He's pathetic. He's always been pathetic. He's been a punchline since the freaking 1980s. How can you look at him and think anything positive?
because he was anti-establishment. Wasn't my choice, either, but the reason ppl voted for him is because he was the most well-organized anti-DC and anti-MSM candidate. This is who a huge % will continue to vote for. Career politicians beware...
 
  • Like
Reactions: countrybob

burntorange72

First Team All-Big Ten
Gold Member
Mar 9, 2004
3,699
2,478
113
Romney or McCain would have won in a landslide against Hillary.
I respectfully disagree. I think Romney would have been a very good President but he was a lousy candidate with weak messaging and bad advisors. His run for President was the first indication of the problems a Republican is going to have overcoming either negative media or incomplete media coverage.
McCain would likely have been more difficult for Hillary. But I don’t think McCain would have the appeal in OH, PA and particularly WI that Trump had. But McCain was a fighter and McCain might have won the Presidency over Hillary. However, I think it would have been a lot contest, not a lopsided victory.
 
Last edited:

madbird

Offensive Coordinator
Gold Member
Nov 30, 2004
8,442
5,145
113
Damn straight. If everyone hated Trump as much as I do this country would be in a much better place.

Your problem is you DON'T hate Trump. Trump conned you, and you bend over and say "Thank you sir can I have another?"
Not easily conned but thanks for the head’s up. Ever consider the possibility that you are wrong? Or is it just easier to follow along?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bobfather

lolwat

Senior
Gold Member
Sep 8, 2016
2,698
4,790
113
because he was anti-establishment. Wasn't my choice, either, but the reason ppl voted for him is because he was the most well-organized anti-DC and anti-MSM candidate. This is who a huge % will continue to vote for. Career politicians beware...

At face value that kind of candidate is fine. I would just be careful when they try to completely overturn free and fair elections, leverage the US treasury for political favors, and float a big lie that had people storm the capital building chanting to hang his vice president.
 

stevehammer

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
Sep 18, 2001
5,725
6,078
113
because he was anti-establishment. Wasn't my choice, either, but the reason ppl voted for him is because he was the most well-organized anti-DC and anti-MSM candidate. This is who a huge % will continue to vote for. Career politicians beware...
I'll buy this for the 2016 election. People who were ignorant of his past and never read anything about what an asshole he is...

But after 4 years of the utter chaos of his Presidency? His tribe is even more devoted to him now than ever before. That's what I don't understand. It was a 4 year shit show culminating in him refusing to accept defeat and then fomenting an insurrection to prevent Congress and the Vice President from certifying that he lost. He literally attempted to end our constitutional form of government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gonzo3705

mhosek

Sophomore
Gold Member
Dec 11, 2001
1,295
1,033
113
I'll buy this for the 2016 election. People who were ignorant of his past and never read anything about what an asshole he is...

But after 4 years of the utter chaos of his Presidency? His tribe is even more devoted to him now than ever before. That's what I don't understand. It was a 4 year shit show culminating in him refusing to accept defeat and then fomenting an insurrection to prevent Congress and the Vice President from certifying that he lost. He literally attempted to end our constitutional form of government.
I don’t disagree with a lot of that, other than I seriously don’t think that a huge % of ‘Trumpers’ (I couldn’t bring myself to vote for him, wasted mine on Jorgensen out of principle, but WOULD HAVE if it was a choice between he and Cuntmala) voted for him because of HIM. It was a vote Against the DC Establishment, and nothing more. Ppl are at the point they’d do about Anything to try and put a check on the unfettered TYRANNY that’s been plaguing us for a generation...
 

franzix

Senior
Gold Member
Aug 25, 2003
2,062
2,332
113
The title of this thread is laughable in blaming libs for the pollicization of HCQ.

The second-most R-leaning state (SD) in the USA publicized a giant research project on HCQ days after Trump started to make it political. The governor publicized it, and the state sent funds to Sanford Health to carry out the study.

Two months later, Sanford dropped it because it wasn't working and had too many complications.

But sure, it was the libs that politicized it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nelsonj22

damcde

All-American
Gold Member
Oct 22, 2007
4,554
8,641
113
Firstly, both are "home-grown" antibodies. You are literally activating the same B/T cells in your body whether you are vaccinated or get COVID infection. Which is why if you have been previously infected, the first dose gives you the same side effects as if it was the second dose in an uninfected person.

Secondly, I said that there have been studies that show that getting vaccinated with the two doses have higher amount of antibody, which people who had COVID naturally reach if they get vaccinated. But there is a threshold to where you have more than enough. Based on what we know with other respiratory viruses, we would expect that most people are going to be protected for at least a year (which is well within this studies timeframe).

However, we know that antibody levels decrease over time for pretty much any infection. Therefore, it seems pretty logical to reason that those with higher antibody levels (via vaccination) will take longer to fall below that threshold than those with lower. Admittedly, we don't know how long that will be for either case. Maybe it is a year, maybe it is 5 years. Based on what we know with other respiratory viruses, including coronaviruses, we would expect that natural infection would be closer to the former. This is where the argument for vaccinating those who have been previous infected comes from.

Regardless, this is a really cool study. I hope that they continue it out. I will note that it correlates with another large study in England showing that people who had previously been infected were had 90-95% protection from symptomatic infections, which is similar to the vaccine rates.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: stevehammer

mhosek

Sophomore
Gold Member
Dec 11, 2001
1,295
1,033
113
Firstly, both are "home-grown" antibodies. You are literally activating the same B/T cells in your body whether you are vaccinated or get COVID infection. Which is why if you have been previously infected, the first dose gives you the same side effects as if it was the second dose in an uninfected person.

Secondly, I said that there have been studies that show that getting vaccinated with the two doses have higher amount of antibody, which people who had COVID naturally reach if they get vaccinated. But there is a threshold to where you have more than enough. Based on what we know with other respiratory viruses, we would expect that most people are going to be protected for at least a year (which is well within this studies timeframe).

However, we know that antibody levels decrease over time for pretty much any infection. Therefore, it seems pretty logical to reason that those with higher antibody levels (via vaccination) will take longer to fall below that threshold than those with lower. Admittedly, we don't know how long that will be for either case. Maybe it is a year, maybe it is 5 years. Based on what we know with other respiratory viruses, including coronaviruses, we would expect that natural infection would be closer to the former. This is where the argument for vaccinating those who have been previous infected comes from.

Regardless, this is a really cool study. I hope that they continue it out. I will note that it correlates with another large study in England showing that people who had previously been infected were had 90-95% protection from symptomatic infections, which is similar to the vaccine rates.

@damcde... truly appreciate your always unbiased and logical, scientific approach to these discussions. Kinda stands out in the face of a lot of partisanship and I think everyone here knows that you know more than everyone else here in terms of immunology. It’s pretty obvious, so props to your diligence in education. On a lighter note, thanks for making me feel better about my family and I waiting on COVID Vax I’m favor of antibodies. We all shared it, willingly. And we’re happy and secure following the social demands, to quell others, all the same.