- Mar 20, 2009
- 14,393
- 16,748
- AFL Club
- Tasmania
- Other Teams
- Jacksonville
- Banned
- #701
Why not?
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Carlton player Liam Jones refusing vax - Update: Jones retires from AFL
- Thread starter 2ballz
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Luckily the pubs will be opened to the people that have rolled up their sleeves and done the right thing! At least at the initial stage and that’s the right decision
I have no issue with this.
There are no long term studies, no long term data, and no absolute certainties as to what the effects of the COVID Vaccine will be in the long term.
We only know what the effects are after 18 months or whatever it is since people first started getting it.
I'd people don't want the Vax for that reason, fair enough.
I disagree, but fair enough.
To be honest, I don't know many, or any people really, that care much where it came from.
Personally I don't care, and don't see the relevance.
I don't recall much arguing about it from the public?
- Sep 5, 2011
- 8,488
- 16,734
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Dallas Cowboys, STL Blues
For this specific set of vaccines, correct we dont have more than 18 months of data, however mRNA vaccine technology has been tested for roughly 30 years - dating back to testing an mRNA vaccine for flu in rodents in the 90's.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
- May 5, 2015
- 2,311
- 3,433
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
over 4000 in QLD by all reports. Fairly considerable amount as they are under staffed as it is.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
That is QLD and they are bunch of wierdos up there, good reason their rates are so poor, even WA are tracking better.
Is that 4000 medical professionals? Or 4000 staff within the medical industry (which could include cleaners, reception staff, data entry staff, etc)?
- Aug 20, 2010
- 4,860
- 5,380
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- FC Bayern, Chelsea FC, Raiders
- Banned
- #708
also looks like a muppet
- Banned
- #709
No peer reviewed long term safety data and becasue of serious safety concerns, specifically for the under 30 male cohort that almost all AFL players are part of and for children, on 23rd August 2021, the FDA ordered Pfizer to complete specific safety trials to evaluate the occurrence of myocarditis and pericarditis in under 30s and to evaluate the effect on children’s hearts after their injections, as well as the first clinical trial for vaccine exposure during pregnancy.
They ordered those studies to continue until 2027.
These included:
1. Deferred pediatric Study C4591001 to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of COMIRNATY in children 12 years through 15 years of age.
Final Protocol Submission: October 7, 2020
Study Completion: May 31, 2023
Final Report Submission: October 31, 2023
2. Deferred pediatric Study C4591007 to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of COMIRNATY in infants and children 6 months to <12 years of age.
Final Protocol Submission: February 8, 2021
Study Completion: November 30, 2023
Final Report Submission: May 31, 2024
3. Deferred pediatric Study C4591023 to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of COMIRNATY in infants <6 months of age.
Final Protocol Submission: January 31, 2022
Study Completion: July 31, 2024
Final Report Submission: October 31, 2024
4. Study C4591009, entitled “A Non-Interventional Post-Approval Safety Study of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine in the United States,” to evaluate the occurrence of myocarditis and pericarditis following administration of COMIRNATY. We acknowledge the timetable you submitted on August 21, 2021, which states that you will conduct this study according to the following schedule:
Final Protocol Submission: August 31, 2021
Monitoring Report Submission: October 31, 2022
Interim Report Submission: October 31, 2023
Study Completion: June 30, 2025
Final Report Submission: October 31, 2025
5. Study C4591021, entitled “Post Conditional Approval Active Surveillance Study Among Individuals in Europe Receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccine,” to evaluate the occurrence of myocarditis and pericarditis following administration of COMIRNATY. We acknowledge the timetable you submitted on August 21, 2021, which states that you will conduct this study according to the following schedule:
Final Protocol Submission: August 11, 2021
Progress Report Submission: September 30, 2021
Interim Report 1 Submission: March 31, 2022
Interim Report 2 Submission: September 30, 2022
Interim Report 3 Submission: March 31, 2023
Interim Report 4 Submission: September 30, 2023
Interim Report 5 Submission: March 31, 2024
Study Completion: March 31, 2024
Final Report Submission: September 30, 2024
6. Study C4591021 substudy to describe the natural history of myocarditis and pericarditis following administration of COMIRNATY. We acknowledge the timetable you submitted on August 21, 2021, which states that you will conduct this study according to the following schedule:
Final Protocol Submission: January 31, 2022
Study Completion: March 31, 2024
Final Report Submission: September 30, 2024
7. Study C4591036, a prospective cohort study with at least 5 years of follow-up for potential long-term sequelae of myocarditis after vaccination (in collaboration with Pediatric Heart Network). We acknowledge the timetable you submitted on August 21, 2021, which states that you will conduct this study according to the following schedule:
Final Protocol Submission: November 30, 2021
Study Completion: December 31, 2026
Final Report Submission: May 31, 2027
8. Study C4591007 substudy to prospectively assess the incidence of subclinical myocarditis following administration of the second dose of COMIRNATY in a subset of participants 5 through 15 years of age. We acknowledge the timetable you submitted on August 21, 2021, which states that you will conduct this assessment according to the following schedule:
Final Protocol Submission: September 30, 2021
Study Completion: November 30, 2023
Final Report Submission: May 31, 2024
9. Study C4591031 substudy to prospectively assess the incidence of subclinical myocarditis following administration of a third dose of COMIRNATY in a subset of participants 16 to 30 years of age. We acknowledge the timetable you submitted on August 21, 2021, which states that you will conduct this study according to the following schedule:
Final Protocol Submission: November 30, 2021
Study Completion: June 30, 2022
Final Report Submission: December 31, 2022
10. Study C4591022, entitled “Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Exposure during Pregnancy: A Non-Interventional Post-Approval Safety Study of Pregnancy and Infant Outcomes in the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists (OTIS)/MotherToBaby Pregnancy Registry.”
Final Protocol Submission: July 1, 2021
Study Completion: June 30, 2025
Final Report Submission: December 31, 2025
- May 5, 2015
- 2,311
- 3,433
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
don't know, the articles don't give a breakdown
Four links:
Exploring the binding efficacy of ivermectin against the key proteins of SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis: an in silico approach - PMC
Aim: COVID-19 is currently the biggest threat to mankind. Recently, ivermectin (a US FDA-approved antiparasitic drug) has been explored as an anti-SARS-CoV-2 agent. Herein, we have studied the possible mechanism of action of ivermectin using in ...www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Frontiers | Molecular Docking Reveals Ivermectin and Remdesivir as Potential Repurposed Drugs Against SARS-CoV-2
SARS-CoV-2 is a newly emerged coronavirus that causes a respiratory disease with variable severity and fatal consequences. It was first reported in Wuhan and...www.frontiersin.org
Mechanism of molnupiravir-induced SARS-CoV-2 mutagenesis - Nature Structural & Molecular Biology
Quantitative biochemical assays and high-resolution cryo-EM analysis reveal how the COVID-19 antiviral drug candidate molnupiravir causes lethal viral mutagenesis by the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) of SARS-CoV-2.www.nature.com
Now try this one: (you're really starting to out yourself as a conspiracy theorist and an anti vaxxer in all the threads you comment on re: the vaccine, btw - not a good look for a mod)
Huge study supporting ivermectin as Covid treatment withdrawn over ethical concerns
The preprint endorsing ivermectin as a coronavirus therapy has been widely cited, but independent researchers find glaring discrepancies in the data
Huge study supporting ivermectin as Covid treatment withdrawn over ethical concerns. The preprint endorsing ivermectin as a coronavirus therapy has been widely cited, but independent researchers find glaring discrepancies in the data.
"The efficacy of a drug being promoted by rightwing figures worldwide for treating Covid-19 is in serious doubt after a major study suggesting the treatment is effective against the virus was withdrawn due to “ethical concerns”.
The preprint study on the efficacy and safety of ivermectin – a drug used against parasites such as worms and headlice – in treating Covid-19, led by Dr Ahmed Elgazzar from Benha University in Egypt, was published on the Research Square website in November.
It claimed to be a randomised control trial, a type of study crucial in medicine because it is considered to provide the most reliable evidence on the effectiveness of interventions due to the minimal risk of confounding factors influencing the results. Elgazzar is listed as chief editor of the Benha Medical Journal, and is an editorial board member.
The study found that patients with Covid-19 treated in hospital who “received ivermectin early reported substantial recovery” and that there was “a substantial improvement and reduction in mortality rate in ivermectin treated groups” by 90%.
But the drug’s promise as a treatment for the virus is in serious doubt after the Elgazzar study was pulled from the Research Square website on Thursday “due to ethical concerns”. Research Square did not outline what those concerns were.
A medical student in London, Jack Lawrence, was among the first to identify serious concerns about the paper, leading to the retraction. He first became aware of the Elgazzar preprint when it was assigned to him by one of his lecturers for an assignment that formed part of his master’s degree. He found the introduction section of the paper appeared to have been almost entirely plagiarised.
It appeared that the authors had run entire paragraphs from press releases and websites about ivermectin and Covid-19 through a thesaurus to change key words. “Humorously, this led to them changing ‘severe acute respiratory syndrome’ to ‘extreme intense respiratory syndrome’ on one occasion,” Lawrence said.
The data also looked suspicious to Lawrence, with the raw data apparently contradicting the study protocol on several occasions.
“The authors claimed to have done the study only on 18-80 year olds, but at least three patients in the dataset were under 18,” Lawrence said.
“The authors claimed they conducted the study between the 8th of June and 20th of September 2020, however most of the patients who died were admitted into hospital and died before the 8th of June according to the raw data. The data was also terribly formatted, and includes one patient who left hospital on the non-existent date of 31/06/2020.”
There were other concerns.
“In their paper, the authors claim that four out of 100 patients died in their standard treatment group for mild and moderate Covid-19,” Lawrence said. “According to the original data, the number was 0, the same as the ivermectin treatment group. In their ivermectin treatment group for severe Covid-19, the authors claim two patients died, but the number in their raw data is four.”
Lawrence and the Guardian sent Elgazzar a comprehensive list of questions about the data, but did not receive a reply. The university’s press office also did not respond.
Lawrence contacted an Australian chronic disease epidemiologist from the University of Wollongong, Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, and a data analyst affiliated with Linnaeus University in Sweden who reviews scientific papers for errors, Nick Brown, for help analysing the data and study results more thoroughly.
Brown created a comprehensive document uncovering numerous data errors, discrepancies and concerns, which he provided to the Guardian. According to his findings the authors had clearly repeated data between patients.
“The main error is that at least 79 of the patient records are obvious clones of other records,” Brown told the Guardian. “It’s certainly the hardest to explain away as innocent error, especially since the clones aren’t even pure copies. There are signs that they have tried to change one or two fields to make them look more natural.”
Other studies on ivermectin are still under way. In the UK, the University of Oxford is testing whether giving people with Covid-19 ivermectin prevents them ending up in hospital.
The Elgazzar study was one of the the largest and most promising showing the drug may help Covid patients, and has often been cited by proponents of the drug as evidence of its effectiveness. This is despite a peer-reviewed paper published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases in June finding ivermectin is “not a viable option to treat COVID-19 patients”.
Meyerowitz-Katz told the Guardian that “this is one of the biggest ivermectin studies out there”, and it appeared to him the data was “just totally faked”. This was concerning because two meta-analyses of ivermectin for treating Covid-19 had included the Elgazzar study in the results. A meta-analysis is a statistical analysis that combines the results of multiple scientific studies to determine what the overall scientific literature has found about a treatment or intervention.
“Because the Elgazzar study is so large, and so massively positive – showing a 90% reduction in mortality – it hugely skews the evidence in favour of ivermectin,” Meyerowitz-Katz said.
“If you remove this one study from the scientific literature, suddenly there are very few positive randomised control trials of ivermectin for Covid-19. Indeed, if you get rid of just this research, most meta-analyses that have found positive results would have their conclusions entirely reversed.”
Kyle Sheldrick, a Sydney doctor and researcher, also independently raised concerns about the paper. He found numbers the authors provided for several standard deviations – a measure of variation in a group of data points – mentioned in tables in the paper were “mathematically impossible” given the range of numbers provided in the same table.
Sheldrick said the completeness of data was further evidence suggesting possible fabrication, noting that in real-world conditions, this was almost impossible. He also identified the duplication of patient deaths and data.
Ivermectin has gained momentum throughout Latin America and India, largely based on evidence from preprint studies. In March, the World Health Organization warned against the use of ivermectin outside well designed clinical trials.
The conservative Australian MP Craig Kelly, who has also promoted the use of the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine to treat Covid-19 – despite World Health Organization advice that clinical trials show it does not prevent illness or death from the virus – has been among those promoting ivermectin. Several Indian media outlets ran stories on Kelly in the past week after he asked Uttar Pradesh to loan the state’s chief minister, Adityanath, to Australia to release ivermectin. After this story was initially published, Kelly contacted the Guardian to say he disagreed that there was no evidence that hydroxychloroquine worked, and that he stood by his views.
Lawrence said what started out as a simple university assignment had led to a comprehensive investigation into an apparent scientific fraud at a time when “there is a whole ivermectin hype … dominated by a mix of right-wing figures, anti-vaxxers and outright conspiracists”.
“Although science trends towards self-correction, something is clearly broken in a system that can allow a study as full of problems as the Elgazzar paper to run unchallenged for seven months,” he said.
“Thousands of highly educated scientists, doctors, pharmacists, and at least four major medicines regulators missed a fraud so apparent that it might as well have come with a flashing neon sign. That this all happened amid an ongoing global health crisis of epic proportions is all the more terrifying.”
- Mar 20, 2009
- 14,393
- 16,748
- AFL Club
- Tasmania
- Other Teams
- Jacksonville
- Banned
- #712
How do go to the supermarket? Do you wear a hazmat suit? Sure as hell can guarantee there'll be unvaccinated people there.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
One place is better than them being everywhere. They can always get vaccinated
Don't disagree.
Just saying that I can at least understand some people being worried for that reason.
I don't agree with it, mind you.
Worth noting that we don't know the long term effects of COVID either.
And just one photo from the space station of the giant disc to swing the flat earth argument the other way.
Just because you're vaccinated, doesn't mean you're not spreading nonsense that the anti vax community endorses and believes. In everything that you comment on, you act like covid is nothing, and that 'only the sick and obese die from it' re. the WC player rumour thread.
You also keep touting ivermectin as a cure (which is why I posted that article), and you keep posting things about how 'big pharma' is rebranding ivermectin and selling it for a big profit, while ivermectin is 'demonized by CNN.' This is literally textbook anti vax, Craig Kelly, conspiracy theory nonsense. Yet here you are posting it ad nauseam (I noticed you only responded to my vax comment, but nothing about the article that exposes the largest ivermectin study that many like Craig Kelly cite, as a hoax).
My guess, you're vaxxed, but only because you have to be, not because you believe COVID is actually a fatal affliction - which is why you continue to post the blatant disinformation that you've posted all over BF.
Last edited:
Data shows 17 vaccine deaths related to falls.....LOLZ
Vaccine efficacy for stopping Delta transmission is negligible until after second dose then peaks at around 70% effectiveness 5 weeks after second dose and back to negligible for symptomatic protection three months later. Effectiveness against severe infection or death lasts around 4 or 5 months after second dose, then data shows it worse compared to being unvaccinated.
Antibodies are expected to decrease as wide durable, long lasting memory Tcells are formed. This is only been shown in recovered COVID patients. But becasue there are 6 other human corona viruses including four common cold corona viruses, cross protection from memory TCells people already have, occurs in many when confronted with SARS CoV 2.
These are experimental products (only Comirnaty approved for over 16s), that haven't completed long term peer reviewed safety trials and won't until 2023. FDA have only just ordered nine different heart inflammation trials which won't be completed until 2023-2025. TGA had to admit that TTS that has never occured before after a vaccine is directly related to the COVID injection, but they haven't proved any of the other 624 deaths are not related, even though they claim they're a coincidence.
Because of this it is especially important autopsy or take note of strong signals from each countries reporting adverse event notification systems. Australia's TGA warn there are many times higher than expected rates of heart inflammation especially after the second Pfizer dose in young men and although many countries (US, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, France, Germany, Ontario,) have banned the Moderna hotshot (more than 3x mRNA per dose than Pfizer) or age restricted it to over 30s, over 24s or over 18s because of the serous heart inflammation risks, Australia are still jabbing 12 year olds and over.
In Australia comparison the DAEN (database of adverse events notifications) reports show only 59 deaths total in the last 50 years after 75 different vaccines, compared with over 624 in seven months after COVID injections.
Myocarditis over the last 50 years after vaccinations = 5 cases and /1 death V 487 cases / 3 deaths in 7 months.
Pericarditis over the last 50 years after vaccinations = 5 cases V 1253 cases.
Thrombocytopenia: 23 cases /1 death V 613 cases /30 deaths.
ITP: 9 cases/ 1 death V 102 cases/ 5 deaths.
Thrombosis and deep vein thrombosis: 2 cases V 1349 cases and 27 deaths.
Increased D dimer: 3 cases V 1126 and 30 deaths.
Blindness: 2 cases V 53 cases.
Miscarriages 17 V 78
110 deaths from cardiac events
Many more serious adverse events and deaths including the 236 reports with 134 deaths generally from adverse events after immunisation category.
Safety information & education
This section includes links to articles about the general safety of medicines and medical devices, including how the safety of products iapps.tga.gov.au
Vaccinated V unvaccinated transmission levels "no significant difference in viral load between vaccinated and unvaccinated people who tested positive for the delta variant of SARS-CoV-2. It also found no significant difference between infected people with or without symptoms."
No Significant Difference in Viral Load Between Vaccinated and Unvaccinated, Asymptomatic and Symptomatic Groups Infected with SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant
We found no significant difference in cycle threshold values between vaccinated and unvaccinated, asymptomatic and symptomatic groups infected with SARS-CoV-2 Delta. Given the substantial proportion of asymptomatic vaccine breakthrough cases with high viral levels, interventions, including...www.medrxiv.org
When they analysed the data, the researchers found wide variations in viral load within both vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, but not between them. There was no significant difference in viral load between vaccinated and unvaccinated, or between asymptomatic and symptomatic groups.
15 deaths related to "decreased appetite"...Did the vaccine cause them to starve to death?
6 deaths due to "Rash"....Must have been a terribly bad rash!
And my personal favourite, 2 deaths due to back pain....This puts a whole new spin on "my back is killing me"
I guess this is why the site has written on it "An adverse event report does not mean that the medicine is the cause of the adverse event" and "Please do not make an assessment about the safety of a medicine based on the information in the DAEN - medicines."
- Nov 3, 2020
- 3,039
- 11,236
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Sandringham Zebras
Bang on the money here you'd reckon...
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Just on this, posted the below in the other thread yesterday for anyone interested:
This whole "new covid pill is just repurposed Ivermectin" line of discussion that popped up recently made me interested and it actually fits quite nicely with Year 12 chemical structure lessons so I dove a little deeper to have a look at the molecular structure of the 3 chemicals:
Ivermectin (Merck):
Molnupiravir (Merck) & Paxlovid (Pfizer):
There's not a lot of similarity from an organic chemistry perspective. Also interesting that Merck, who make Ivermectin, are bothering to spend what is surely a significant amount of money in R&D to try and make a new covid treatment in molnupiravir considering they apparently already have a viable one.
Just on this, posted the below in the other thread yesterday for anyone interested:
This whole "new covid pill is just repurposed Ivermectin" line of discussion that popped up recently made me interested and it actually fits quite nicely with Year 12 chemical structure lessons so I dove a little deeper to have a look at the molecular structure of the 3 chemicals:
Ivermectin (Merck):
Molnupiravir (Merck) & Paxlovid (Pfizer):
There's not a lot of similarity from an organic chemistry perspective. Also interesting that Merck, who make Ivermectin, are bothering to spend what is surely a significant amount of money in R&D to try and make a new covid treatment in molnupiravir considering they apparently already have a viable one.
Based on that, there's not much similarity at all - which lines up with what most level-headed people are saying. Yet we have a mod who has been endorsed by the community, who is acting like it's all a big conspiracy - and all the anti vax community is right behind them.
Took you two seconds to show, in picture form, the difference in molecular makeup, yet there are hoards of people just spreading nonsense without any basis to support it. No wonder disinformation is so rife in this day and age.
- Banned
- #722
Maybe. Moderna was not long approved and already a 14 girl has died of ventricular fibrillation, reported on 20th October 2021.
On 7th October the TGA reported "Recently, Sweden and Denmark have temporarily paused the use of Spikevax (Moderna) for those aged under 31 and 18 years respectively, based on a study in progress carried out by Danish, Norwegian and Finnish public health agencies."
"The Canadian province of Ontario has issued a recommendation that those aged 24 and under receive the Comirnaty (Pfizer) vaccine preferentially over the Spikevax (Moderna) vaccine."
Finland, Denmark, France and Germany and Taiwan have since banned Moderna for under 18 - 31s, but Australia continue to promote Moderna for 12 year olds and above even though they know it is more than three times as concentrated as the Pfizer jab and associated with serious heart inflammatory safety concerns especially in young men, resulting in all these countries age restricting or banning it.
Pfizer only starting FDA ordered myopericarditis clinical trials, not due to be completed until between 2022 and 2027.
QLD Senator Renncik calling for all COVID vaccines to halt for under 18s.
" But more than 7,000 staff were yet to confirm their vaccination status, with about 4,000 to receive show-cause notices and be suspended on full-pay."....
Rats! If I knew you could still get full pay, I would have refused too!!
- Banned
- #724
No one's said Molnupiravir was similar to IVM.Just on this, posted the below in the other thread yesterday for anyone interested:
This whole "new covid pill is just repurposed Ivermectin" line of discussion that popped up recently made me interested and it actually fits quite nicely with Year 12 chemical structure lessons so I dove a little deeper to have a look at the molecular structure of the 3 chemicals:
Ivermectin (Merck):
Molnupiravir (Merck) & Paxlovid (Pfizer):
There's not a lot of similarity from an organic chemistry perspective. Also interesting that Merck, who make Ivermectin, are bothering to spend what is surely a significant amount of money in R&D to try and make a new covid treatment in molnupiravir considering they apparently already have a viable one.
Trials have been halted in India becasue of safety concerns, so not only is it hardly 50% effective it is no shown to be safe.
I'm not sure where you got the formula from but it acts totally different than IVM.
Merck’s Molnupiravir (also known as EIDD-2801 and MK-4482) is a mutagenic nucleotide analogue [1]. It introduces errors in the SARS-COV-2 RNA at the time of replication after proofreading, and causes lethal mutagenesis [2]. This threatens to accelerate the evolution of the coronavirus.
Any major variant of the coronavirus represents local optimum (in mutations space), maximizing coronavirus’ fitness. One- or two-point mutations cannot accomplish this. A new variant can only rise through the change of the virus-host-conditions systems, or through larger mutations set. Even a moderate increase in the point mutations frequency causes a big increase in the frequency of multi-point mutations and dangerous recombinations. Such events are too rare to be caught in small trials, but inevitable in large populations, and might lead to catastrophic consequences. The authorization and broad use of Molnupiravir is likely to breed very dangerous SARS-COV-2 variants.
Taylor
Community Leader
- Moderator
- #725
I actually have an auto-immune condition and compromised lung function from a pretty bad injury - so I was scared for my own safety and got vaccinated.
But that doesn't mean everyone else needs to, I've done what I needed to in order to protect myself regardless of what action the rest of the world did or didn't take.
And covid-19 is very much like the other respiratory diseases in that people who are in terrible shape or already carrying a burden of an existing disease will be taken by it but almost everyone else won't.
When we are talking about a professional athlete surrounded by other professional athletes who are majority vaccinated, in a super majority vaccinated community - I don't think we are doing anything other than social signalling by jumping on players who decide they don't need it.