General Rugby Discussion II

Sangre

Jinx. Buy me a coke.

AbusesToilets

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Because that's a surefire way to drive the price of the vaccines through the roof, and delivery of the vaccines are limited as it is. It's taken quite some time for production to meet current demand.

Allowing private groups to buy them just leads to the highest bidder and governments not being able to afford them.

I'm talking about the government selling these vaccines. If the prices go up, that's more money in public coffers. Just a thought anyways.

sydthebeat

AbusesToilets wrote: »

He's not wrong tho. He's exactly in the demographic least likely to have a serious response to infection.

100% wrong

arsebiscuits1

Sangre wrote: »

Jinx. Buy me a coke.

Have you done research into the long term effects of coke?

aloooof

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I'm talking about the government selling these vaccines. If the prices go up, that's more money in public coffers. Just a thought anyways.

The government selling them at the expensive of vulnerable people getting them? Ethically, that would be a pretty appalling decision, without even getting into the optics.

AbusesToilets

Bazzo wrote: »

It's not though. It's an unbelievably selfish position to take. Even suspending disbelief for a second and assuming there might be long term effects of the vaccine, the alternative is to continue in the covid hell we've all been in for the past year... Which is obviously not acceptable. Failing to vaccinate to herd immunity gives the virus rampant opportunity to mutate around vaccines - putting the vulnerable back at risk. And taking the opinion "I won't get it because only 70% need to" makes you a selfish twat, because it inherently relies on 70% of people being less selfish than you.

We don't have mandatory vaccines for many diseases. The flu being an obvious one, that kills a lot of people every year. We've never had herd immunity against it, and likely never will against Covid, given how mutable it is. The goal of the vaccines isn't to prevent people from getting sick. It's to prevent them from getting seriously sick and overwhelming the hospitals. The vaccines seem to reduce transmission, but they don't prevent you from catching it or passing it along. I've a friend who caught it, was seriously ill, got vaccinated, and then caught it again. We're likely going to be getting boosters from years for this.

Crispr/ mRNA vaccines are brand new. We have little to no data on what potential long term effects could arise from them. Trying to brow beat someone for being cautious in the face of that is being wildly unfair.

AbusesToilets

aloooof wrote: »

The government selling them at the expensive of vulnerable people getting them? Ethically, that would be a pretty appalling decision, without even getting into the optics.

Why is it either or? The vaccine roll out in Ireland is at a snail's pace in comparison to the US for example. Is it a lack of available doses? It's free to everyone in the US, with them looking to open it up to kids soon.

Former Former Former

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Why is it either or? The vaccine roll out in Ireland is at a snail's pace in comparison to the US for example. Is it a lack of available doses? It's free to everyone in the US, with them looking to open it up to kids soon.

We don't have the supply. This has been all over the news for months.

aloooof

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Why is it either or? The vaccine roll out in Ireland is at a snail's pace in comparison to the US for example. Is it a lack of available doses? It's free to everyone in the US, with them looking to open it up to kids soon.

It's 'either or' because that's the position we're still currently in, unfortunately; a very large number of vulnerable people haven't received their 2nd doses yet. And that's not necessarily all at the hands of the government.

We're behind the US largely because AZ (and now Janssen) failed to deliver on their contractual obligations. AZ only delivered 30 million doses, out of a contracted 120 million in Q1 for example. (In terms of administering the vaccines we've received, we've been pretty decent from what I understand).

The EU's vaccine portfolio had a larger percentage of AZ vaccines to the US, who had a larger percentage of Pfizer. All these deals were signed at a time when no one knew which would work and which would be first the market.

Yes, the vaccine rollout is behind the US. But the context of why matters.

AbusesToilets

aloooof wrote: »

It's 'either or' because that's the position we're still currently in, unfortunately; a very large number of vulnerable people haven't received their 2nd doses yet. And that's not necessarily all at the hands of the government.

We're behind the US largely because AZ (and now Janssen) failed to deliver on their contractual obligations. AZ only delivered 30 million doses, out of a contracted 120 million in Q1 for example. (In terms of administering the vaccines we've received, we've been pretty decent from what I understand).

The EU's vaccine portfolio had a larger percentage of AZ vaccines to the US, who had a larger percentage of Pfizer. All these deals were signed at a time when no one knew which would work and which would be first the market.

Yes, the vaccine rollout is behind the US. But the context of why matters.

Thanks the answer, I haven't been overly cognizant of the particulars with respect to Ireland.

sydthebeat

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Why is it either or? The vaccine roll out in Ireland is at a snail's pace in comparison to the US for example. Is it a lack of available doses? It's free to everyone in the US, with them looking to open it up to kids soon.

the US, typically, worked on an "me first" basis....

Bazzo

AbusesToilets wrote: »

We don't have mandatory vaccines for many diseases. The flu being an obvious one, that kills a lot of people every year. We've never had herd immunity against it, and likely never will against Covid, given how mutable it is. The goal of the vaccines isn't to prevent people from getting sick. It's to prevent them from getting seriously sick and overwhelming the hospitals. The vaccines seem to reduce transmission, but they don't prevent you from catching it or passing it along. I've a friend who caught it, was seriously ill, got vaccinated, and then caught it again. We're likely going to be getting boosters from years for this.

Crispr/ mRNA vaccines are brand new. We have little to no data on what potential long term effects could arise from them. Trying to brow beat someone for being cautious in the face of that is being wildly unfair.

If you think the flu kills a lot of people every year wait until you hear about something called covid! You're basing a lot on the assumption that virus won't mutate past vaccination providing safety from serious illness, which is fundamentally flawed. Covid isn't "just another" disease (as bad as many of them are): that's why it's ground the whole planet to a halt for more than a year.

AbusesToilets

sydthebeat wrote: »

the US, typically, worked on an "me first" basis....

Bit unfair. It's doubtful we'd have the vaccine right now if the US hadn't pumped so much money and effort into their development.

AbusesToilets

Bazzo wrote: »

If you think the flu kills a lot of people every year wait until you hear about something called covid! You're basing a lot on the assumption that virus won't mutate past vaccination providing safety from serious illness, which is fundamentally flawed. Covid isn't "just another" disease (as bad as many of them are): that's why it's ground the whole planet to a halt for more than a year.

I literally wrote that it's likely to mutate, hence the idea of herd immunity being an unlikely achievement.

sydthebeat

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Bit unfair. It's doubtful we'd have the vaccine right now if the US hadn't pumped so much money and effort into their development.

very myoptic there

US didnt pump money into the russian or chinese vaccine... so why do you think we'd be without one if it wasnt for the yanks?

the US famously didnt pump money into the pfizer vaccine either... even though trump tried to claim credit for it.

AbusesToilets

sydthebeat wrote: »

very myoptic there

US didnt pump money into the russian or chinese vaccine... so why do you think we'd be without one if it wasnt for the yanks?

the US famously didnt pump money into the pfizer vaccine either... even though trump tried to claim credit for it.

The Chinese and Russian vaccines with dubious and unproven efficacy? There's a reason the world isn't looking to them for their supplies.

Eod100

Looks like some fans will get to Ireland games in summer https://twitter.com/newschambers/status/1398336384545570824?s=19

Buer

UNICEF have signed up to the Sputnik vaccine as have over 60 countries (including a couple of EU nations). It's efficacy has been reported as being excellent with the information corroborated and supported in The Lancet.

Just because the western nations with close links to one another aren't using it doesn't mean it's not playing a very significant and effective role in combating Covid-19.

aloooof

AbusesToilets wrote: »

We don't have mandatory vaccines for many diseases. The flu being an obvious one, that kills a lot of people every year. We've never had herd immunity against it, and likely never will against Covid, given how mutable it is. The goal of the vaccines isn't to prevent people from getting sick. It's to prevent them from getting seriously sick and overwhelming the hospitals. The vaccines seem to reduce transmission, but they don't prevent you from catching it or passing it along. I've a friend who caught it, was seriously ill, got vaccinated, and then caught it again. We're likely going to be getting boosters from years for this.

Crispr/ mRNA vaccines are brand new. We have little to no data on what potential long term effects could arise from them. Trying to brow beat someone for being cautious in the face of that is being wildly unfair.

Equally, we also have little, but increasing data on the long term effects of Covid. And given it now seems endemic, which you allude to yourself, the chances of him avoiding it indefinitely would seem extremely low to me, even with herd immunity.

In such a scenario, I'll side every time with what we do know; that vaccines have an incredibly high efficacy against severe disease.

In any case, this has strayed a bit off topic.

AbusesToilets

aloooof wrote: »

Equally, we also have little, but increasing data on the long term effects of Covid. And given it now seems endemic, which you allude to yourself, the chances of him avoiding it indefinitely would seem extremely low to me, even with herd immunity.

In such a scenario, I'll side every time with what we do know; that vaccines have an incredibly high efficacy against severe disease.

In any case, this has strayed a bit off topic.

Agree, and want to point out, I don't agree with him. I don't think the vitriol directed his way is warranted however.

sprucemoose

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I literally wrote that it's likely to mutate, hence the idea of herd immunity being an unlikely achievement.

if herd immunity is achieved then the likelihood of mutations decreases massively.



.........anyway, this has a tenuous enough link to rugby

hahashake

Regarding the Munster firepit situation, do pro athletes have stipulations about getting injured outside of training/playing? e.g. are they banned from risky activities, are they in any way adversely affected for an injury they picked up while skiing etc.?

I can't imagine the highest paid football players etc. are contractually allowed to engage in any high-risk leisure activity.

stephen_n

hahashake wrote: »

Regarding the Munster firepit situation, do pro athletes have stipulations about getting injured outside of training/playing? e.g. are they banned from risky activities, are they in any way adversely affected for an injury they picked up while skiing etc.?

I can't imagine the highest paid football players etc. are contractually allowed to engage in any high-risk leisure activity.

Is having a bbq considered a risky behavior?

It would also depend on how risk is gauged. After playing rugby, most other sports would be considered low risk. You can still get injured playing golf though.

OldRio

hahashake wrote: »

Regarding the Munster firepit situation, do pro athletes have stipulations about getting injured outside of training/playing? e.g. are they banned from risky activities, are they in any way adversely affected for an injury they picked up while skiing etc.?

I can't imagine the highest paid football players etc. are contractually allowed to engage in any high-risk leisure activity.

You can't contractually guard against rank stupidity.

snor

stephen_n wrote: »

Is having a bbq considered a risky behavior?

It would also depend on how risk is gauged. After playing rugby, most other sports would be considered low risk. You can still get injured playing golf though.

Not having a BBQ as such but having someone present who is stupid enough to throw petrol On a fire pit might be deemed risky behaviour. The mind boggles 😬

hahashake

Wasn't specifically interested in the firepit example, just curious about injuries for pro athletes outside of their job as a whole. It seems to be pretty rare but I would be surprised if a highly paid athlete in a less physical sport would be allowed to ski black diamond runs for example.

Christy42

hahashake wrote: »

Wasn't specifically interested in the firepit example, just curious about injuries for pro athletes outside of their job as a whole. It seems to be pretty rare but I would be surprised if a highly paid athlete in a less physical sport would be allowed to ski black diamond runs for example.

Probably depends on contract. Bledsoe had a ban on certain types of skiing in his contract for the Pats for a bit I believe but that wasn't always the case.

Burkie1203

hahashake wrote: »

Wasn't specifically interested in the firepit example, just curious about injuries for pro athletes outside of their job as a whole. It seems to be pretty rare but I would be surprised if a highly paid athlete in a less physical sport would be allowed to ski black diamond runs for example.

I reckon all IRFU contracts now strictly prohibited water slides

Yeah_Right

hahashake wrote: »

Wasn't specifically interested in the firepit example, just curious about injuries for pro athletes outside of their job as a whole. It seems to be pretty rare but I would be surprised if a highly paid athlete in a less physical sport would be allowed to ski black diamond runs for example.

I knew a few guys that played Super rugby back home and there were clauses banning certain activities during the season. I remember skiing, snowboarding and mountain biking being on it. Possibly skateboarding. This was 20 years ago so I don't know what it's like now. It maybe stricter or the Players Union may have had them removed.

I'm pretty sure Rua Tipoki got told he couldn't play in social touch rugby comps after he broke both his hands punching an opponent in one during the NPC season.

Former Former Former

OldRio wrote: »

You can't contractually guard against rank stupidity.

Indeed.

And on the other hand, some coaches contractually enforce stupidity...

https://www.skysports.com/rugby-union/news/12551/11308062/wasps-sam-jones-forced-to-retire-aged-26-after-judo-injury-suffered-on-england-duty