wrote in message
news
On Thu, 4 Feb 2021 10:53:08 -0800, Bob F wrote:

On 2/3/2021 9:23 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 16:28:20 -0800, Bob F wrote:

On 2/3/2021 1:43 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 09:07:18 -0800, Bob F wrote:

On 2/2/2021 6:27 PM, micky wrote:
Drugstores to get vaccine starting next week.

Phase II


https://www.google.com/search?client...ting+next+week


Good try on that title.

At least one vaccine reduces spread.

"The vaccine developed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca
not
only protects people from serious illness and death but also
substantially slows the transmission of the virus, according to a new
study €” a finding that underscores the importance of mass vaccination
as
a path out of the pandemic.

Researchers at the University of Oxford measured the impact on
transmission by swabbing participants every week seeking to detect
signs
of the virus. If there is no virus present, even if someone is
infected,
it cannot be spread. And they found a 67 percent reduction in
positive
swabs among those vaccinated.

The results, detailed by Oxford and AstraZeneca researchers in a
manuscript that has not been peer-reviewed, found that the vaccine
could
cut transmission by nearly two-thirds."

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/03/u...3e91b65130eb97

It is interesting that we seem to be considering all of these new
vaccines equal when it is turning out they aren't. Once supply catches
up, we may be getting another round of the "good" vaccine, which ever
that one is for your particular circumstance and I still think there
will be an annual booster.

I also think "free" may go away after a while. Like any good drug
pusher, the first one is always free ;-)


So far, it seems the worst vaccine pretty much eliminates
hospitalization. I would not complain about that.

You have set your sights pretty low.
You are saying you are willing to get sick and spread the disease as
long as you don't die is all we need.
I would hope they come up with a better answer and if so we will be
having another round of vaccinations. That is all I said.
That also assumes the current vaccine works on the mutations we know
about and the ones we will learn about by summer.


Nonsense.

The current vaccines all virtually eliminate hospitalization. So for
vaccinated people, covid is no worse than a mild flu.

At least one vaccine has been shown to reduce spread of infection by at
least 2/3, moving us way closer to herd immunity. Other vaccines may
soon show similar results.

We have a better answer, and it is being vaccinated ASAP.

If another vaccine is needed, we have proven
technology to develop it quickly.

First you say no, then you say yes.

Another stupid lie.

Make up your mind.

He has done that fine.

It is clear this virus is mutating, as corona viruses do

Yes.

and it is also clear the vaccine will have
to change to address the mutations.

Nope, current vaccines work fine with the mutations.

I still bet this is an annual ritual like the flu shot.

Yep, you actually are that stupid.

They might even come up with an RNA flu vaccine

Problem is that flu mutates much faster.

and it might get mixed into the cocktail we call
a flu shot, also dealing with that year's Covid.

Not mixed in so much as does both because
it has the genetic material for both,

Absent some serious side effects we don't know
about yet, this RNA thing might become a common
defense against other diseases. It is a novel approach
against a novel virus but it might catch on.

Not all the vaccines for this virus are rna vaccines.

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 4 Feb 2021 12:58:40 -0800, Bob F wrote:

On 2/4/2021 12:02 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Feb 2021 06:35:06 -0500, micky
wrote:

In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 03 Feb 2021 16:43:56 -0500,
wrote:

On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 09:07:18 -0800, Bob F wrote:

On 2/2/2021 6:27 PM, micky wrote:
Drugstores to get vaccine starting next week.

Phase II


https://www.google.com/search?client...ting+next+week


Good try on that title.

At least one vaccine reduces spread.

"The vaccine developed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca
not
only protects people from serious illness and death but also
substantially slows the transmission of the virus, according to a new
study €” a finding that underscores the importance of mass vaccination
as
a path out of the pandemic.

Researchers at the University of Oxford measured the impact on
transmission by swabbing participants every week seeking to detect
signs
of the virus. If there is no virus present, even if someone is
infected,
it cannot be spread. And they found a 67 percent reduction in
positive
swabs among those vaccinated.

The results, detailed by Oxford and AstraZeneca researchers in a
manuscript that has not been peer-reviewed, found that the vaccine
could
cut transmission by nearly two-thirds."

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/03/u...3e91b65130eb97

It is interesting that we seem to be considering all of these new
vaccines equal when it is turning out they aren't. Once supply catches
up, we may be getting another round of the "good" vaccine, which ever
that one is for your particular circumstance and I still think there
will be an annual booster.

I also think "free" may go away after a while. Like any good drug
pusher, the first one is always free ;-)

You're so cynical. Aren't the other vaccines for communciable
diseases,
poliio, measles, mumps, diphteria still free?

Nothing is free. Somebody is paying for it, usually the tax payers.
You really are a democrat.


And you don't care about public health. You really are a Repub.

I care about public health and I have no problem subsidizing things
that work. I am just not deluded into thinking they are free. There is
a difference.

If you really want to make something expensive, convince people it is
free.

Even sillier than you usually manage and thats saying something.

No charge public health care is HALF the cost of the insurance system.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 08:25:09 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 4 Feb 2021 09:46:24 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 2/4/2021 7:14 AM, jimmy wrote:
On 2/4/21 6:35 AM, micky wrote:
You're so cynical. Aren't the other vaccines for communciable
diseases,
poliio, measles, mumps, diphteria still free?


Unless you're a welfare-crat, there is no such thing as "free". There
is
always a taxed Republican who pays for your "free" stuff.


So the working Democrats pay no taxes? Damn, I should register as a Dem
and save money. I think your logic is a bit lopsided.

Only his politics, the logic is solid.

Nope.

Most "free" stuff is funded by those who pay taxes.
Otherwise, it is bundled in the price of what you buy.

Wrong with the air I breath.

The EPA says the clean air act has cost $65 BILLION.

That's not the air *I* breath, ****wit.

Other estimates make it much higher than that.
Certainly there are benefits that exceed that cost many
times over (EPA says $2T worth) but it is not free.

The air *I* breath is.

"Tekkie©" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 04 Feb 2021 15:02:13 -0500, posted for all of us
to
digest...


On Thu, 04 Feb 2021 06:35:06 -0500, micky
wrote:

In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 03 Feb 2021 16:43:56 -0500,
wrote:

On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 09:07:18 -0800, Bob F wrote:

On 2/2/2021 6:27 PM, micky wrote:
Drugstores to get vaccine starting next week.

Phase II


https://www.google.com/search?client...ting+next+week


Good try on that title.

At least one vaccine reduces spread.

"The vaccine developed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca not
only protects people from serious illness and death but also
substantially slows the transmission of the virus, according to a new
study ? a finding that underscores the importance of mass vaccination
as
a path out of the pandemic.

Researchers at the University of Oxford measured the impact on
transmission by swabbing participants every week seeking to detect
signs
of the virus. If there is no virus present, even if someone is
infected,
it cannot be spread. And they found a 67 percent reduction in positive
swabs among those vaccinated.

The results, detailed by Oxford and AstraZeneca researchers in a
manuscript that has not been peer-reviewed, found that the vaccine
could
cut transmission by nearly two-thirds."

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/03/u...3e91b65130eb97

It is interesting that we seem to be considering all of these new
vaccines equal when it is turning out they aren't. Once supply catches
up, we may be getting another round of the "good" vaccine, which ever
that one is for your particular circumstance and I still think there
will be an annual booster.

I also think "free" may go away after a while. Like any good drug
pusher, the first one is always free ;-)

You're so cynical. Aren't the other vaccines for communciable diseases,
poliio, measles, mumps, diphteria still free?

Nothing is free. Somebody is paying for it, usually the tax payers.
You really are a democrat.

One must also remember the waste involved in the taxes coming in and the
actual
benefit given. Every company involved makes profit and gov't agencies has
associated costs & waste. The only difference between companies and the
gov't
is the co's try to minimize waste for more profit and the gov't ignores
waste
because they are looking for next years budget increase.

And yet single payer govt health care funding systems cost HALF
what the insurance system costs and produces a worse result too.

On 2/4/2021 5:43 PM, wrote:

Absent some serious side effects we don't know about yet, this RNA
thing might become a common defense against other diseases. It is a
novel approach against a novel virus but it might catch on.


Some are concerned about this method but it has been in the works for
some years now. This was the big opportunity to use the technology and
it seems to be working.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00019-w

In spite of what Muggles keeps bringing up, it is not a DNA experiment.

Common questions
Could an mRNA vaccine change my DNA?
An mRNA vaccine €” the first COVID-19 vaccine to be granted emergency use
authorization (EUA) by the FDA €” cannot change your DNA.

On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 11:25:35 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Even sillier than you usually manage and that¢s saying something.

An even sillier troll from you than you usually manage, senile Rodent, and
that's saying something!

--
John addressing the senile Australian pest:
"You are a complete idiot. But you make me larf. LOL"
MID:

On Thursday, February 4, 2021 at 7:29:50 PM UTC-5, Rod Speed wrote:

And yet single payer govt health care funding systems cost HALF
what the insurance system costs and produces a worse result too.

Has it ever occurred to you that Americans don't care about a worse
result, as long as it isn't _their_ worse result. Someone else ending
up in the ER because they can't afford to manage their diabetes isn't
seen as a problem.

Cindy Hamilton

wrote
Rod Speed wrote

And yet single payer govt health care funding systems cost HALF
what the insurance system costs and produces a worse result too.

Has it ever occurred to you that Americans don't care about
a worse result, as long as it isn't _their_ worse result.

But those that get that worse result clearly do.

Someone else ending up in the ER because they can't
afford to manage their diabetes isn't seen as a problem.

But it is a problem for those that end up in the ER for that reason.

On Friday, February 5, 2021 at 12:25:12 PM UTC-5, Rod Speed wrote:
wrote
Rod Speed wrote

And yet single payer govt health care funding systems cost HALF
what the insurance system costs and produces a worse result too.

Has it ever occurred to you that Americans don't care about
a worse result, as long as it isn't _their_ worse result.
But those that get that worse result clearly do.
Someone else ending up in the ER because they can't
afford to manage their diabetes isn't seen as a problem.
But it is a problem for those that end up in the ER for that reason.

Those, however, aren't the people who would be giving up their
employer-paid health insurance to have single-payer instead.

You've seen people post here. They don't want to pay for anything
that doesn't benefit themselves directly.

Cindy Hamilton

On Sat, 6 Feb 2021 04:25:00 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread


--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 86-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Thu, 4 Feb 2021 15:37:51 -0800, Bob F posted for all of us to digest...


On 2/4/2021 3:14 PM, Tekkie? wrote:

On Thu, 04 Feb 2021 15:02:13 -0500, posted for all of us to
digest...


On Thu, 04 Feb 2021 06:35:06 -0500, micky
wrote:

In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 03 Feb 2021 16:43:56 -0500,
wrote:

On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 09:07:18 -0800, Bob F wrote:

On 2/2/2021 6:27 PM, micky wrote:
Drugstores to get vaccine starting next week.

Phase II


https://www.google.com/search?client...ting+next+week


Good try on that title.

At least one vaccine reduces spread.

"The vaccine developed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca not
only protects people from serious illness and death but also
substantially slows the transmission of the virus, according to a new
study ? a finding that underscores the importance of mass vaccination as
a path out of the pandemic.

Researchers at the University of Oxford measured the impact on
transmission by swabbing participants every week seeking to detect signs
of the virus. If there is no virus present, even if someone is infected,
it cannot be spread. And they found a 67 percent reduction in positive
swabs among those vaccinated.

The results, detailed by Oxford and AstraZeneca researchers in a
manuscript that has not been peer-reviewed, found that the vaccine could
cut transmission by nearly two-thirds."

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/03/u...3e91b65130eb97

It is interesting that we seem to be considering all of these new
vaccines equal when it is turning out they aren't. Once supply catches
up, we may be getting another round of the "good" vaccine, which ever
that one is for your particular circumstance and I still think there
will be an annual booster.

I also think "free" may go away after a while. Like any good drug
pusher, the first one is always free ;-)

You're so cynical. Aren't the other vaccines for communciable diseases,
poliio, measles, mumps, diphteria still free?

Nothing is free. Somebody is paying for it, usually the tax payers.
You really are a democrat.

One must also remember the waste involved in the taxes coming in and the actual
benefit given. Every company involved makes profit and gov't agencies has
associated costs & waste. The only difference between companies and the gov't
is the co's try to minimize waste for more profit and the gov't ignores waste
because they are looking for next years budget increase.



And that next years budget increase never is a goal in private industry???

LOL!

At least private industry tries to minimize it. It's human note to try to
expand ones fiefdom. But it's it's still not free.

--
Tekkie

wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote
Rod Speed wrote

And yet single payer govt health care funding systems cost HALF
what the insurance system costs and produces a worse result too.

Has it ever occurred to you that Americans don't care about
a worse result, as long as it isn't _their_ worse result.
But those that get that worse result clearly do.
Someone else ending up in the ER because they can't
afford to manage their diabetes isn't seen as a problem.

But it is a problem for those that end up in the ER for that reason.

Those, however, aren't the people who would be giving up their
employer-paid health insurance to have single-payer instead.

Irrelevant.

You've seen people post here. They don't want to pay
for anything that doesn't benefit themselves directly.

They would in fact be paying HALF what they pay now.

On 2/5/2021 9:51 AM, wrote:
On Friday, February 5, 2021 at 12:25:12 PM UTC-5, Rod Speed wrote:
wrote
Rod Speed wrote

And yet single payer govt health care funding systems cost HALF
what the insurance system costs and produces a worse result too.

Has it ever occurred to you that Americans don't care about
a worse result, as long as it isn't _their_ worse result.
But those that get that worse result clearly do.
Someone else ending up in the ER because they can't
afford to manage their diabetes isn't seen as a problem.
But it is a problem for those that end up in the ER for that reason.

Those, however, aren't the people who would be giving up their
employer-paid health insurance to have single-payer instead.

You've seen people post here. They don't want to pay for anything
that doesn't benefit themselves directly.

Cindy Hamilton


And they want to pay twice what the rest of the developed world does.

On Sat, 6 Feb 2021 09:12:16 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile pest's latest troll**** unread


--
Bod addressing abnormal senile quarreller Rot:
"Do you practice arguing with yourself in an empty room?"
MID:

On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 14:57:54 -0800, Bob F wrote:

On 2/5/2021 9:51 AM, wrote:
On Friday, February 5, 2021 at 12:25:12 PM UTC-5, Rod Speed wrote:
wrote
Rod Speed wrote

And yet single payer govt health care funding systems cost HALF
what the insurance system costs and produces a worse result too.

Has it ever occurred to you that Americans don't care about
a worse result, as long as it isn't _their_ worse result.
But those that get that worse result clearly do.
Someone else ending up in the ER because they can't
afford to manage their diabetes isn't seen as a problem.
But it is a problem for those that end up in the ER for that reason.

Those, however, aren't the people who would be giving up their
employer-paid health insurance to have single-payer instead.

You've seen people post here. They don't want to pay for anything
that doesn't benefit themselves directly.

Cindy Hamilton


And they want to pay twice what the rest of the developed world does.

As long as we have lawyers on TV advertising that they can make you
rich over any perceived medical misadventure, that lawyer tax will get
back loaded on your medical bills.
You will be getting unnecessary referrals and additional tests, just
to cover everyone's ass. Those judgements and out of court settlements
that don't show up in the stats still show up on your bill.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 14:57:54 -0800, Bob F wrote:

On 2/5/2021 9:51 AM, wrote:
On Friday, February 5, 2021 at 12:25:12 PM UTC-5, Rod Speed wrote:
wrote
Rod Speed wrote

And yet single payer govt health care funding systems cost HALF
what the insurance system costs and produces a worse result too.

Has it ever occurred to you that Americans don't care about
a worse result, as long as it isn't _their_ worse result.
But those that get that worse result clearly do.
Someone else ending up in the ER because they can't
afford to manage their diabetes isn't seen as a problem.
But it is a problem for those that end up in the ER for that reason.

Those, however, aren't the people who would be giving up their
employer-paid health insurance to have single-payer instead.

You've seen people post here. They don't want to pay for anything
that doesn't benefit themselves directly.

Cindy Hamilton


And they want to pay twice what the rest of the developed world does.

As long as we have lawyers on TV advertising that they can make you
rich over any perceived medical misadventure, that lawyer tax will get
back loaded on your medical bills.

Not mine, because we have a decent govt
single payer system so that any extra tests
just use more of my time and have no
effect whatever on my medical bills.

You will be getting unnecessary referrals and
additional tests, just to cover everyone's ass.

But that doesn't affect my medical bills and
I am free to not bother with the referral
or the test if I decide it makes no sense.

Those judgements and out of court settlements that
don't show up in the stats still show up on your bill.

Not on mine they don't.

On Fri, 05 Feb 2021 22:41:29 -0500, posted for all of us to
digest...


On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 14:57:54 -0800, Bob F wrote:

On 2/5/2021 9:51 AM, wrote:
On Friday, February 5, 2021 at 12:25:12 PM UTC-5, Rod Speed wrote:
wrote
Rod Speed wrote

And yet single payer govt health care funding systems cost HALF
what the insurance system costs and produces a worse result too.

Has it ever occurred to you that Americans don't care about
a worse result, as long as it isn't _their_ worse result.
But those that get that worse result clearly do.
Someone else ending up in the ER because they can't
afford to manage their diabetes isn't seen as a problem.
But it is a problem for those that end up in the ER for that reason.

Those, however, aren't the people who would be giving up their
employer-paid health insurance to have single-payer instead.

You've seen people post here. They don't want to pay for anything
that doesn't benefit themselves directly.

Cindy Hamilton


And they want to pay twice what the rest of the developed world does.

As long as we have lawyers on TV advertising that they can make you
rich over any perceived medical misadventure, that lawyer tax will get
back loaded on your medical bills.
You will be getting unnecessary referrals and additional tests, just
to cover everyone's ass. Those judgements and out of court settlements
that don't show up in the stats still show up on your bill.

And don't forget, those ads have overhead built in too.

--
Tekkie

On Sat, 6 Feb 2021 16:00:19 -0500, Tekkie© wrote:


On Fri, 05 Feb 2021 22:41:29 -0500, posted for all of us to
digest...


On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 14:57:54 -0800, Bob F wrote:

On 2/5/2021 9:51 AM, wrote:
On Friday, February 5, 2021 at 12:25:12 PM UTC-5, Rod Speed wrote:
wrote
Rod Speed wrote

And yet single payer govt health care funding systems cost HALF
what the insurance system costs and produces a worse result too.

Has it ever occurred to you that Americans don't care about
a worse result, as long as it isn't _their_ worse result.
But those that get that worse result clearly do.
Someone else ending up in the ER because they can't
afford to manage their diabetes isn't seen as a problem.
But it is a problem for those that end up in the ER for that reason.

Those, however, aren't the people who would be giving up their
employer-paid health insurance to have single-payer instead.

You've seen people post here. They don't want to pay for anything
that doesn't benefit themselves directly.

Cindy Hamilton


And they want to pay twice what the rest of the developed world does.

As long as we have lawyers on TV advertising that they can make you
rich over any perceived medical misadventure, that lawyer tax will get
back loaded on your medical bills.
You will be getting unnecessary referrals and additional tests, just
to cover everyone's ass. Those judgements and out of court settlements
that don't show up in the stats still show up on your bill.

And don't forget, those ads have overhead built in too.

Along with the overhead for doctor, hospital and drug company ads.
In the same break you can see an ad for a drug and right behind it an
ambulance chaser saying if you took that drug he can get you money. It
is not shocking that our medical care is so expensive.