Not being middle class is no excuse for being thick, that's just lazy thinking.
Vaccinated Players
- Thread starter choccy77
- Start date
DammitI would assume a lot of it has to do with risk-assessment. Essentially covid by now is a known entity with players who are pretty much 24/7 under any form of medical care.
Unlike us commoners this is a completely different background and thus the risk of covid becoming serious is so minimal at this point that teams and players seem to not consider the vaccine necessary for now. Especially in the context that many vaccinated report of feeling some form of exhaustion for some time afterwards - which is players will want to avoid at all costs to not be at 100% of his performance.
There is a good chance many more will do it during the next summer break I reckon.
Just an assumption, though.
Unlike us commoners this is a completely different background and thus the risk of covid becoming serious is so minimal at this point that teams and players seem to not consider the vaccine necessary for now. Especially in the context that many vaccinated report of feeling some form of exhaustion for some time afterwards - which is players will want to avoid at all costs to not be at 100% of his performance.
There is a good chance many more will do it during the next summer break I reckon.
Just an assumption, though.
If the vaccine had no side effects and had an actual efficacy rate of 90% and above to prevent symptomatic illness - then they would have been dumb and selfish.
As it stands - vaccines are not effective in preventing symptomatic disease. Vaccines have caused numerous side effects. Some people have died. Myocarditis is serious especially for athletes. Vaccines have not stopped transmission of the virus.
So footballers should be free to make their own decisions according to their risk benefit analysis.
As it stands - vaccines are not effective in preventing symptomatic disease. Vaccines have caused numerous side effects. Some people have died. Myocarditis is serious especially for athletes. Vaccines have not stopped transmission of the virus.
So footballers should be free to make their own decisions according to their risk benefit analysis.
Funny you end with risk benefit analysis and don't talk about the several footballers who have had long covid (compared to your 'side effects' from the immune response lasting a night or two). Or the much higher risk of getting myocarditis from actual covid infection. Or a player like Karl Darlow being hospitalised.
It's completely irrational to fear the vaccine but be content to catch covid.
Ireland is one of the most heavily vaccinated places on the planet most of our teenagers are vaccinated too
https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/most-vaccinated-region-world-irish-25058150
Its the world we live in now. Misinformation is widely available and exaggerating vaccine issues, whilst glossing over the benefits is rife.
An NBA player, Wiggings who plays for Golden States Warriors, hasn't taken the vaccine and as a result risks missing all their home games in the upcoming season
What age groups are you referring to here? Young footballer-aged people that have been double jabbed or older?
But if you are weighing it up in a risk vs benefit way, you’ve admitted the risk is greater for being unjabbed if you’re over 18 so unless you’re going down conspiracy theory rabbit holes, there really is nothing to weigh up scientifically.
I don’t think he said that and it really isn’t irrational to fear a vaccine that isn’t as effective as the govt claim.
I think we’re still a couple of years away from an effective vaccine so if individual adults want to make that decision based on genuine fears then let them be free to do so.
Think he stated under 13.
What? under 13s ending up in hospital after being double jabbed?
Under 13s have been excluded from the vaccines as per SAGE and MHRA recommendations. We are seeing double jabbed patients in ITU in the over thirties group. The vaccine which I have taken myself, works in reducing hospital admissions but it is only temporary. Some of the known side effects (myocarditis and CVST) can be permanent. This is the balance of risk footballers will have to assess. Of course if you mention this on Facebook, YouTube or Twitter you will be reprimanded or even banned.
We know all these things already. No one has claimed that you won’t be hospitalised if you are over 30 and double jabbed. All the more reason for those under 30 to take it up.
You don’t need me to tell you how many people you would be seeing hospitalised right now if it wasn’t for the vaccine.
There’s no recommendation for a double jab due to the risk. That’s for boys I should have said. A single jab only has been recommended.
I wasn’t asking about that. I was asking the poster what age those patients were who were in intensive care after being double jabbed.
Currently testicular cancer has a 95% five year survival rate. Unfortunately that does mean that 5% will die if they get testicular cancer. Orchidectomy (surgically removing your balls) can prevent death from testicular cancer in 100% of cases. Footballers are crazy for not chopping their balls off when there is overwhelming evidence for preventing testicular cancer and unlike the vaccine the protection from afforded from orchidectomy is permanent.
We don’t know do we? Will they ever release figures?
In Israel aren’t 85% of new hospital intakes been double jabbed? Didn’t their Health minister say that vaccinated people now present a greater risk to the wider population than unvaccinated?
It was an interview i heard. I’d like to think it’s fake but I don’t know. If anyone wanted to clarify that or debunk it please post.
I prefer to believe there’s hope with vaccines
Mate, I was just asking the poster the rough age of the people that were in his intensive care unit that were double jabbed. Im not sure what you’re finding difficult to understand about that.
Aren’t you just going off on a massive tangent here? That clearly isn’t the subject being discussed and it’s a totally separate issue.
And it was answered. I don’t think he has the figures. What’s so difficult to understand
Yeah I’m out.
Why does it need figures. I’m sure he has eyes? We’re talking about anecdotal evidence in a hospital he works at, which he used to explain why footballers shouldn’t get a vaccine.
I don't get this. Why only home games? What is the reasoning at work here?
Apologies I’m didn’t know
That
What a bizarre way of stating the issue for a medical professional. That's the way people should be weighing it up?? The vaccine angainst the massively transmissible, hugely prevalent and possibly fatal virus runs out at some stage but the extremely rare possible side effects could be permanent? I'm glad you're not my doctor. I'm teaching in a disadvantaged area, lot's of vaccine scepticism or apathy. I can think of at least 5 families who have lost unvaccinated people close to them and there have been a number of students very hard hit with the virus and who continue to suffer the effects. Of course it's people's right to choose but pretending it makes sense medically for a fit 30 year old to refuse it is bonkers.
Because of local regulations, San Francisco and New York have stricter regulations than most other cities so players from the Warriors, Knicks and Brooklyn will have to get vaccinated in order to play home games.
I'm not telling people not to take the vaccine , I'm simply saying it is not as black and white an issue as the mainstream media makes it out to be, especially for those under 30. We should not ridicule those who chose not to have the vaccine. Believe me I was once in your position trying desperately to convince patients to take various treatments and to stop unhealthy behaviours. I would be baffled by their resistance and I would be critical of them when speaking to other health professionals. But it never managed to change to their minds. We live in what is supposed to be a free country. We don't force people to stop smoking even though it is suspected of causing others disease via passive smoking, we don't force people to stop drinking alcohol even though it is heavily linked to domestic violence and drink driving.
Think of the fervent Ole out brigade ( I think we won't win any major trophy with him) if you were to tell them that there is overwhelming evidence that he has improved the side and that he is a great manager, they won't come round to your way of thinking. In fact if you give such a one sided assessment it is likely to arouse suspicion and harden their position against you.
Think of the fervent Ole out brigade ( I think we won't win any major trophy with him) if you were to tell them that there is overwhelming evidence that he has improved the side and that he is a great manager, they won't come round to your way of thinking. In fact if you give such a one sided assessment it is likely to arouse suspicion and harden their position against you.
I think their internal thought process has parallels with the trolley problem.
If a train is about to plough into 10 people but by pulling a lever you can save them by diverting it into 5 people instead, which do you do?
On the face of it, it's obvious. Pull the lever. You do the calculation that confers the most benefit, you make the active choice, and you take the positive action.
However, people don't always operate in the world of maths and statistics. Stepping away from the lever means you can rationalise the consequences aren't really your fault. But performing the physical act of pulling the lever would mean the blame would be.
I know the analogy is far from perfect. But I think the reasoning follows similar lines. Players don't want to take the jab because any complications would be their fault. Whereas turning it down would mean that any illness would be the fault of nature. That's particularly true for the young or self-reliant who believe in their own invulnerability. And for a lot of 20-something professional footballers with brilliant genetics and the body of a Greek God, nature understandably feels like less of a worry than the artificial.
You can't always debate your way into convincing somebody else they're wrong. The risk is entrenching their initial beliefs even further. It sounds like a lot of footballers are stuck in their own echo chamber. I think we just need to be sympathetic to their point of view whilst also educating them with as much of a soft touch as possible.
If a train is about to plough into 10 people but by pulling a lever you can save them by diverting it into 5 people instead, which do you do?
On the face of it, it's obvious. Pull the lever. You do the calculation that confers the most benefit, you make the active choice, and you take the positive action.
However, people don't always operate in the world of maths and statistics. Stepping away from the lever means you can rationalise the consequences aren't really your fault. But performing the physical act of pulling the lever would mean the blame would be.
I know the analogy is far from perfect. But I think the reasoning follows similar lines. Players don't want to take the jab because any complications would be their fault. Whereas turning it down would mean that any illness would be the fault of nature. That's particularly true for the young or self-reliant who believe in their own invulnerability. And for a lot of 20-something professional footballers with brilliant genetics and the body of a Greek God, nature understandably feels like less of a worry than the artificial.
You can't always debate your way into convincing somebody else they're wrong. The risk is entrenching their initial beliefs even further. It sounds like a lot of footballers are stuck in their own echo chamber. I think we just need to be sympathetic to their point of view whilst also educating them with as much of a soft touch as possible.
Thank you for the additional info. I only knew about the SF part
What’s your point?
How does vaccination among players line up with other sports. Are we seeing similar percentages in rugby, cricket, basketball etc?
I must have missed it when testicular cancer became a highly contagious disease spread in the air...
We do tax both alcohol and tobacco specifically for the health impacts they have and the cost that has on the NHS / social effects though. We let people decide, but they pay extra for the privilege of that decision.
Makes sense. Footballers are largely uneducated, thick as feck, obviously young, and self centred. The perfect recipe.
That's selectively playing with Statistics now isn't it?
Israel has 80+% of its population vaccinated, so chances are that the ones who need hospitalization would be vaccinated more often than not. The absolute numbers have drastically reduced from the previous year when the virus broke out.
Would the scientific community have loved it for a vaccine to prevent all hospitalization, yes absolutely.
But should the fact that there are breakthrough cases stop anyone from taking the vaccine, no freaking way!
If you want to read about it a bit more - this article was pretty insightful - https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...srael-hospitalization-rates-simpsons-paradox/
While people do have the right to informed choice, their choices should have consequences. If you're not vaccinated, you shouldn't be allowed in a place of public usage (i.e. pubs, football grounds, theaters, malls etc.). Enjoy your choice inside your own homes.
Editing to add another quote that was particularly insightful
Washington Post article said:
Here in South Africa it’s very clear cut. Football is a sport for the masses and it’s very cheap to play. And most pro footballers would have sacrificed education in pursuit of becoming a pro because if you’re not really well affiliated with a pro club from a young age or talent spotter in your teens, your chances of making pro reduces dramatically.
Rugby and cricket though, are offered at a pro level (clear route to becoming a pro rather) at University level, so you’d actually need to get some sort of education which would help your pursuit of becoming a pro (scholarships etc). And they’re both generally more expensive sports to participate in (time and equipment for cricket, rugby nutrition etc which helps).
Im sure it’s probably “similar” in most other countries.
In the NHL the uptake is almost 100% (I believe only 10 or 15 players are unvaccinated).
If they do not get jabbed they are unable to cross the US/Canada border and will miss at least 30 games. Also, if they get Covid, they won't get paid.
Excellent post.
Obviously you'll be ridiculed because there is a cult like attitude to anyone who even remotely tries to go against the mainstream view here or on any other forum.