What's new

Proof of vaccination or negative COVID test required to attend games

Going in for surgery two weeks from now and I’ve been told I’ll know if it will be delayed within a few days before my date. The U has been backed up on surgeries all year so I’ve waited 5 months to now be told it could be delayed even further. It’s all very frustrating.

I appreciate Ryan for doing the right thing here. With there being 41 games and roughly 18k fans at the game it’s safe to say this will probably save some lives and prevent more idiots from taking up icu beds.


Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz
 
If you sincerely don't want people to die, then at minimum you would want ALL people to get negative covid tests before attending a game.
I would support this position. I don't make these decisions for the Jazz.

Now go bother other people with your fake ***, moral high ground attitude as you continue to attempt to divide people and discriminate against the group you don't see eye to eye with.
You are a funny guy.
 
Sure you get additional protection regardless, but who cares about reducing a .000000001% chance to ..0000000005% other than idiots like gandalfe (and the other idiots on this board)?
Patriotic Americans (or people in other countries with respect to their country) care.

This is why people are fed up with these virtue signaling liberals. They make up ****, they don't know how to read science articles, and they gobble up whatever CNN and MSNBC tells them.
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Go ahead, bring in an actual scientific article and your interpretation of it. Let's see your immense scientific literacy on display.
 
If you don't like vaccine just don't go to games. Watch it from home. Simple. No one is gonna bust into your house and force the shot upon you
 
Don't confuse frustration with hate.
Exactly. We all are dealing with the pandemic, it is literally affecting everyone. I just want people to take reasonable steps to let us get back to all of the freedoms we all want to enjoy. And when science CLEARLY and definitively show vaccination in any combo (before infection, after infection, or for those never infected) is more protective than without, making it spread at a lower rate and saving lives.

I really think critical thinking courses and constitutional law should be a required portion of middle/high school education.

I have no hate for antivaxxers, just frustration, pity and sadness.
 
The way I see it, I’m fully vaccinated so I have nothing at all to be scared of or judge others of. If the guy next to me on trax right now is unvaccinated, I really don’t care as if he gets really sick or dies he made his bed.
 
Since you call me illiterate, I wonder what it means that you weren't even able to read the second sentence in that link?
"These data further indicate that COVID-19 vaccines offer better protection than natural immunity alone and that vaccines, even after prior infection, help prevent reinfections."

You illiterate ****ing pig. It provides better protection than natural immunity ALONE. You can't just drop words out of a sentence to fit your narrative.

Here is the end of the summary of the article (since you probably didn't bother clicking on the link: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm7032e1_w

First it spells out 5 limitations of the study and says you can't use this article as causation:
"The findings in this report are subject to at least five limitations. First, reinfection was not confirmed through whole genome sequencing, which would be necessary to definitively prove that the reinfection was caused from a distinct virus relative to the first infection. Although in some cases the repeat positive test could be indicative of prolonged viral shedding or failure to clear the initial viral infection (9), given the time between initial and subsequent positive molecular tests among participants in this study, reinfection is the most likely explanation. Second, persons who have been vaccinated are possibly less likely to get tested. Therefore, the association of reinfection and lack of vaccination might be overestimated. Third, vaccine doses administered at federal or out-of-state sites are not typically entered in KYIR, so vaccination data are possibly missing for some persons in these analyses. In addition, inconsistencies in name and date of birth between KYIR and NEDSS might limit ability to match the two databases. Because case investigations include questions regarding vaccination, and KYIR might be updated during the case investigation process, vaccination data might be more likely to be missing for controls. Thus, the OR might be even more favorable for vaccination. Fourth, although case-patients and controls were matched based on age, sex, and date of initial infection, other unknown confounders might be present. Finally, this is a retrospective study design using data from a single state during a 2-month period; therefore, these findings cannot be used to infer causation. Additional prospective studies with larger populations are warranted to support these findings."

Then it reiterates that the study was done on persons previously infected with covid:
"These findings suggest that among persons with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, full vaccination provides additional protection against reinfection. Among previously infected Kentucky residents, those who were not vaccinated were more than twice as likely to be reinfected compared with those with full vaccination. All eligible persons should be offered vaccination, including those with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, to reduce their risk for future infection."
 
The way I see it, I’m fully vaccinated so I have nothing at all to be scared of or judge others of. If the guy next to me on trax right now is unvaccinated, I really don’t care.
You have no older family members or young kids in your family? Colleagues? Friends?

What happens when you get in an accident or diagnosed with cancer and will need to be in unnecessary pain for months because you can't get an elective surgery?

I have older colleagues, friends and family that are more vulnerable, or ineligible for vaccine currently. It isn't about me.
 
"These data further indicate that COVID-19 vaccines offer better protection than natural immunity alone and that vaccines, even after prior infection, help prevent reinfections."

You illiterate ****ing pig. It provides better protection than natural immunity ALONE. You can't just drop words out of a sentence to fit your narrative.

Here is the end of the summary of the article (since you probably didn't bother clicking on the link: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm7032e1_w

First it spells out 5 limitations of the study and says you can't use this article as causation:
"The findings in this report are subject to at least five limitations. First, reinfection was not confirmed through whole genome sequencing, which would be necessary to definitively prove that the reinfection was caused from a distinct virus relative to the first infection. Although in some cases the repeat positive test could be indicative of prolonged viral shedding or failure to clear the initial viral infection (9), given the time between initial and subsequent positive molecular tests among participants in this study, reinfection is the most likely explanation. Second, persons who have been vaccinated are possibly less likely to get tested. Therefore, the association of reinfection and lack of vaccination might be overestimated. Third, vaccine doses administered at federal or out-of-state sites are not typically entered in KYIR, so vaccination data are possibly missing for some persons in these analyses. In addition, inconsistencies in name and date of birth between KYIR and NEDSS might limit ability to match the two databases. Because case investigations include questions regarding vaccination, and KYIR might be updated during the case investigation process, vaccination data might be more likely to be missing for controls. Thus, the OR might be even more favorable for vaccination. Fourth, although case-patients and controls were matched based on age, sex, and date of initial infection, other unknown confounders might be present. Finally, this is a retrospective study design using data from a single state during a 2-month period; therefore, these findings cannot be used to infer causation. Additional prospective studies with larger populations are warranted to support these findings."

Then it reiterates that the study was done on persons previously infected with covid:
"These findings suggest that among persons with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, full vaccination provides additional protection against reinfection. Among previously infected Kentucky residents, those who were not vaccinated were more than twice as likely to be reinfected compared with those with full vaccination. All eligible persons should be offered vaccination, including those with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, to reduce their risk for future infection."
Again, in any combo, (Covid before vacc, Covid after vacc, or Vacc without getting Covid) vaccination will provide more protection than without, so I am not sure what there is to argue.

Also, getting the virus just to prevent the virus seems to be about the stupidest idea I ever heard.
 
Again, in any combo, (Covid before vacc, Covid after vacc, or Vacc without getting Covid) vaccination will provide more protection than without, so I am not sure what there is to argue.

Also, getting the virus just to prevent the virus seems to be about the stupidest idea I ever heard.
I dislike responding to these posts because it shows the person didn't take time to read through the thread.

One of the points I made multiple times is that an unvaccinated person who had covid is more protected than a vaccinated person who never had covid. And gandalf, the illiterate pig, tried to argue otherwise.

Yes, I would recommend to anyone that wants to minimize effects of covid to get vaccinated. But nobody is arguing against that. Not everyone needs to minimize those effects. And this circles back to another point I brought up that risk threshold is subjective. The point is with the vaccine available, life can resume without discriminating against the unvaccinated, since the risk is incredibly low.

Also, I'm done with this thread most people here seem to be pious or straight up bad people. I've had my fill of using science to debunk the hate-filled drivel.
 
Last edited:
You have no older family members or young kids in your family? Colleagues? Friends?

What happens when you get in an accident or diagnosed with cancer and will need to be in unnecessary pain for months because you can't get an elective surgery?

I have older colleagues, friends and family that are more vulnerable, or ineligible for vaccine currently. It isn't about me.
Ok so if your colleagues are vulnerable, who’s job is it to protect them? It’s unfortunate but it’s on them.

As far as elective surgery? Maybe not fire people?
 
Below are the latest numbers from England regarding outcomes of patients hospitalized with the Delta variant. According to Public Health England's COVID-19 variant report, between February 1, 2021 and September 12, 2021, 52% of delta cases, 47% of emergency care visits, and 70% of delta deaths had at least one of dose of the vaccine.

Of the 2,542 deaths recorded in the sample, 1,779 (70%) had received at least their first dose of the vaccine. Whereas, 722 (30%) were unvaccinated.

Of course, there is very likely a propensity of individuals with advanced age and co-morbidities to take the vaccine relative to younger, healthier cohorts. So it is expected that this group would experience more deaths due to their being more vulnerable to the disease at the outset.

As of this week, as many as 89% of England's population are reported to be vaccinated. If we choose a median date during the term of this study and assume that roughly 60% of the population was vaccinated, then vaccinated individuals do index lower for emergency care visit (Index of 78), but index higher to ultimately succumb to the disease (Index of 117).

I have to concede that this data suggests vaccination among individuals under the age of 50 will reduce the likelihood that they will need to be admitted to an emergency room. Without knowing the actual percentage of people under the age of 50 from the population at large who were vaccinated during the term of this study, it is difficult to gauge just how big the impact is. However, there is enough data here to suggest that vaccination within the population as a whole will reduce the burden on hospitals to some degree.

Whether this factor is enough for governments or businesses to seek to compel vaccination is a matter for debate. I regard vaccination as a matter of individual assessment and judgement.

32e01d85420a6fe4.png
 
Last edited:
Top