Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stockton's season tickets suspended due to his defiance of McCarthey mask mandate

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • John Stockton made his decision. Gonzaga U made their decision. They each did what they thought they had to do, such as all of us have or will do. Simple as that. I will not opine on who is right. No one is moving their positions on this matter after two years.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by zagfan24 View Post
      Re: the mandate. Anecdotal but worth sharing.

      One of my coworkers only got vaccinated because of the mandate here. Then right before Xmas, her unvaccinated sister and parents all died in a span of four weeks. She's the only one who survived. The mandate saved her life, no doubt.

      There's also new data from Michigan suggesting that masks in schools might be helpful after all:
      https://www.abc12.com/coronavirus/un...c2171d7fe.html
      Do you think she learned from this tragic occurrence?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Alum08 View Post
        Vaccines reduce severe COVID cases (primarily people with 2.5+ comorbidities) for about 4-6 months post-booster, but they do not affect the spread of CoV-2: https://link.springer.com/article/10...54-021-00808-7

        So if you want to reduce hospital visits in the near-term then it is a good strategy, but has no bearing on the spread of COVID. Any restrictions that are in place against the unvaccinated are simply a form of coercion to potentially reduce strain on the hospital systems and not a means to reduce the spread of COVID. If we really wanted to cut this pandemic with a knife then we would only implement restrictions on those with comorbidities since they represent 94% of hospital cases. This strategy (the Great Barrington Declaration) would infringe on the least number of personal liberties while still protecting our healthcare system. Unfortunately those voices have been systematically silenced by the pharmaceutical industrial complex (the same people who in all likelihood OK'd the funding for CoV GoF research in Wuhan to begin with even after it was rejected by DARPA because of GoF concerns.
        And you would systematically identify those in the population with comorbidities--how, exactly?

        Have everyone turn over all their medical records to the government to see who has these comorbidities so we can just focus on them?

        And what if those with comorbidities don't want to play along? For example, what if those who are currently anti-vaxxers tend to also be statistically more likely to be obese, to have diabetes, and to have poor cardiologic health because of a poor diet. Which I don't think is too far fetched. Do you really think that the typical redneck obese anti vaxxer with diabetes and a heart condition who lives in the sticks and owns an AR-15 to protect his family from the government is going to sign up for this program? Get real.

        There is no practical way to even identify those with comorbidities on a mass scale given medical privacy laws. And good luck getting them all to just sign up to be guinea pigs even if you could identify them.

        If we cannot have vaccine mandates we certainly cannot do whatever it is that is being proposed here.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by nwray1 View Post
          John Stockton made his decision. Gonzaga U made their decision. They each did what they thought they had to do, such as all of us have or will do. Simple as that. I will not opine on who is right. No one is moving their positions on this matter after two years.
          Bari Weiss former NYT reporter changed her opinion based on current data. Some people do change.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by zagfan24 View Post
            .... Anecdotal but worth sharing.

            One of my coworkers only got vaccinated because of the mandate here. Then right before Xmas, her unvaccinated sister and parents all died in a span of four weeks. She's the only one who survived. The mandate saved her life, no doubt.
            "Anecdotal but worth sharing" ... I like that.

            The same week we had a multi-page thread following the progress of one of our own's journey to the ICU (and we had concerns about another Boardmember) a friend of mine (a former Federal Law enforcement officer) lost his brother and sister in law. They'd (the brother and sister in law) moved from Colorado to Wyoming a year ago to get away from liberal Colorado and have "freedom" ... "freedom" to NOT have to wear a mask, etc. This was roughly the timeframe DZ also had his rough go with COVID. Those two (my friend's brother and sister in law) both died within an hour of getting taken off of life support. Their son (my buddy's nephew) died of COVID 10 days ago.

            Anecdotal, but worth sharing.
            sigpic
            “To be continued …”. Fr Tony Lehman, SJ
            ——-
            List of All Americans (1st Team Top 5) and Academic All Americans (1st Team Top 5) in the same season since '00:
            Shane Battier, Dan Dickau, Omeka Okafor, DJ Augustin, Kelly Olynyk, Nigel Williams-Goss, Corey Kispert.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by jazzdelmar View Post
              Do you think she learned from this tragic occurrence?
              She did, and was frustrated/devastated by the misinformation that took away her family.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by LongIslandZagFan View Post
                Honestly... yes. Numbers are going to limit where the virus can go and survive. In the NE here it is already on a steep decline. Places where there is less people vaxed still have a long road ahead of them but I am hopeful that by the end of February we'll be in a better place. All those non-vaxxed people should thank the Lord that we didn't get a variant that was Omicron level spread and Delta deadly.
                It’s nice to agree with you on something

                Comment


                • Originally posted by zagfan24 View Post
                  The stats on vaccines are so absurdly lopsided it's not really worth arguing the minutiae of the data. They CLEARLY prevent severe illness and death, the discrepancies are overwhelming.

                  To the extent that the vaccines are linked to myocarditis and pericarditis....so is COVID-19!! "Dr James de Lemos, a cardiologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, who reported one of the first cases at the start of the year, said in the New York Times “It’s going to be manifold more common to get heart muscle inflammation from getting COVID than you would from getting a vaccine, even in young men."

                  I'm not interested in policing masks or even debating masks. This is about a rule that the University established. I think that those who don't agree and refuse to comply have the right to watch the game at home. He is the loser in this, in that he couldn't be bothered to follow a simple rule even if he didn't agree.

                  When people have died at the hands of law enforcement following minor legal infractions there are many people who shout the refrain "if you had simply complied, you would still be alive." Well, John is simply being banned from GU games. It's a pretty benign punishment.
                  Shout out to the mods for keeping this thread open and policing it; lots of good back and forth here.

                  Worked my way through 6 pages and need a break, but zagfan24 among others sums up my perspective.
                  John Stockton is out there publicly advocating against vaccinations; it is totally embarrassing particularly for an institution of higher education.

                  I feel bad most of all for the new AD, Chris Standiford. First the Mark Few incident, now this...Roth must be pretty happy he called it quits when he did!
                  Even though I care a lot about my basketball opinions, they are like comparing a bicycle to a championship motorcycle who is our coach. . ZagsGoZags

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by 229SintoZag View Post
                    And you would systematically identify those in the population with comorbidities--how, exactly?

                    Have everyone turn over all their medical records to the government to see who has these comorbidities so we can just focus on them?

                    And what if those with comorbidities don't want to play along? For example, what if those who are currently anti-vaxxers tend to also be statistically more likely to be obese, to have diabetes, and to have poor cardiologic health because of a poor diet. Which I don't think is too far fetched. Do you really think that the typical redneck obese anti vaxxer with diabetes and a heart condition who lives in the sticks and owns an AR-15 to protect his family from the government is going to sign up for this program? Get real.

                    There is no practical way to even identify those with comorbidities on a mass scale given medical privacy laws. And good luck getting them all to just sign up to be guinea pigs even if you could identify them.

                    If we cannot have vaccine mandates we certainly cannot do whatever it is that is being proposed here.
                    I can't tell if this entire post is sarcasm or not. It manages to weave in so many "holier-than-thou" tropes and ironic statements in so little words. If so, good job!

                    Is showing the government your medical history somehow worse than showing your insurance company? How about sharing your medical information with Ticketmaster or CVS/Walgreens like the vast majority of the population is currently doing. If we aren't there already, we're headed there and this pandemic has only highlighted it. As the nation moves close to Universal Healthcare, the government and public will have a vested interest in knowing your medical history (like during a pandemic).

                    Rather, the purpose of narrowing the scope of mandates is to reduce the collateral damage that we are currently inflicting on individuals liberties and the economy by treating everyone like lepers when that is hardly the case (despite the constant fear propaganda). Solving the problem with a scalpel instead of a shotgun, so-to-speak.

                    Your argument about hypothetical Billy Bob is completely nonsensical because that same Billy Bob is doing the same Billy Bob things right now. What the Barrington Declaration proposes is that we should stop focusing our ire on skinny, healthy Billy Bobs that really do not pose a statistical risk to the healthcare system, and focus instead on protecting those that do (Billy Bob or otherwise). And if they don't want to comply, well that's the same situation you are in right now only with a much larger number of people with much stronger arguments against getting the vaccine due to their extremely-low statistical risk.

                    I don't want mandates at all, but if they are going to force them on people then it needs to at least make some sense if the goal is to limit hospitilzations (is that where the goalposts are now, I can't keep track), especially in light of Omicron's severity (or lack there-of).

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Zagceo View Post
                      I don't see what's LOL about a country that supports so much Censorship.

                      Thanks for trying to view starts 30 min into video...so fast forward

                      https://rumble.com/vokrf7-sen.-johns...-mandates.html
                      Answer this: If a fan in the middle of the Mac Cheer "FCK GONZAGA!!!!" Using that word, every time it went quiet, would Gonzaga have the right to remove them?

                      The government cannot censor speech, private companies can and should when it comes to stuff for which they could be held liable. The only thing that actually could bring FB down would be the lawsuits filed by families who lost love ones due to disinformation.

                      One of our own most treasured posters got literally run off the board because he kept trying to save lives with data and people here who do other things for a living, businesses, insurance, banking, law, ran off a guy who spent four years at med school, five training and has 3 decades of experience researching, only to be told he had it all wrong by alumni of Gonzaga University.

                      I still find that unfathomable. And, if you ask me, as much as John Stockton loves Gonzaga - and he does - for him to take that kind of stance, over such a small thing, he's acting more like a person in a cult than one who is thinking. For 100 years surgeons have been wearing masks, not to protect themselves, but the person on the table, from bacteria and viruses.

                      Whether you think it is right or wrong, when you are too "sure of yourself" so as to flaunt and essentially break up with his second love, part of his family, over simply maybe keeping others safer, that approaches mental illness. If I walked into the Mac for a game and they handed out masks, saying they were required bc there are some visitors with compromised immune systems and everyone is wearing one bc it "Might" help, I'd say "sure." Wear it, and that would be the last thought I gave it.
                      Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.
                      Mark Twain.

                      Comment


                      • Just asking, could you guys that think you have statistical numbers that prove vaccines and masks are ineffective go back and review the statistics for our championship game with Baylor? I think we may need to hang a championship banner if you review the game with the same approach you are taking here.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by tinfoilzag View Post
                          from Friedrich Hayek (“Law, Legislation and Liberty, Volume 3” published in 1979):

                          "‘Emergencies’ have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded – and once they are suspended it is not difficult for anyone who has assumed emergency powers to see to it that the emergency will persist."
                          In 1905 the SCOTUS ruled that the government had the authority to order vaccinations of every citizen. Schools have used vax requirements for decades, none of that power seems to have been asserted here. There hasn't been a single federal order that anyone needed a shot in the arm, they got a choice, whether job/military/whatever - it was their choice. That's using less power than the power they have.
                          Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.
                          Mark Twain.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by DZ View Post
                            In 1905 the SCOTUS ruled that the government had the authority to order vaccinations of every citizen. Schools have used vax requirements for decades, none of that power seems to have been asserted here. There hasn't been a single federal order that anyone needed a shot in the arm, they got a choice, whether job/military/whatever - it was their choice. That's using less power than the power they have.
                            No, no, no stop spreading misinformation. Jacobson v. Massachusetts was about allowing states to enact vaccine mandates, NOT the federal government. The Federal government does NOT have that power, never has, and never will.

                            And if any State enacts it, it's basically suicide through population/taxation collapse. Thus it's the free market between states that keeps their power in check (as the founders intended it).

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Alum08 View Post
                              No, no, no stop spreading misinformation. Jacobson v. Massachusetts was about allowing states to enact vaccine mandates, NOT the federal government. The Federal government does NOT have that power, never has, and never will.

                              And if any State enacts it, it's basically suicide through population/taxation collapse. Thus it's the free market between states that keeps their power in check (as the founders intended it).
                              That is true, my mistake and one I shouldn't make based on my training.

                              My point was to go against the idea that once an emergency hits and power is grabbed, it is immediately abused.

                              I do think that had the case been about whether the federal government could do it or not might have made a difference, bc states have traditionally been the ones changed with the "general welfare" of the citizenry, but an argument that the federal government could've done it might well have won then also.

                              But that was my mistake and I thank you for the correction.

                              Now, everyone get max vaccinated and get N-95 masks so that people stop dying.

                              My father worked in ICUs for 35 yrs, worked in Idaho when it declared itself a failed state and had to triage care thanks to the unvaccinated people. Every single person he saw in the ICU over that year (he wanted to retire the year before), every single one was unvaccinated after the vaccines had made the rounds.

                              And for those who say they prefer to rely upon antibodies as treatment after getting COVID, monochromal antibody treatments cost $1500 a treatment and rely upon much of the same science as the vaccinations.
                              Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.
                              Mark Twain.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Alum08 View Post
                                I can't tell if this entire post is sarcasm or not. It manages to weave in so many "holier-than-thou" tropes and ironic statements in so little words. If so, good job!

                                Is showing the government your medical history somehow worse than showing your insurance company? How about sharing your medical information with Ticketmaster or CVS/Walgreens like the vast majority of the population is currently doing. If we aren't there already, we're headed there and this pandemic has only highlighted it. As the nation moves close to Universal Healthcare, the government and public will have a vested interest in knowing your medical history (like during a pandemic).

                                Rather, the purpose of narrowing the scope of mandates is to reduce the collateral damage that we are currently inflicting on individuals liberties and the economy by treating everyone like lepers when that is hardly the case (despite the constant fear propaganda). Solving the problem with a scalpel instead of a shotgun, so-to-speak.

                                Your argument about hypothetical Billy Bob is completely nonsensical because that same Billy Bob is doing the same Billy Bob things right now. What the Barrington Declaration proposes is that we should stop focusing our ire on skinny, healthy Billy Bobs that really do not pose a statistical risk to the healthcare system, and focus instead on protecting those that do (Billy Bob or otherwise). And if they don't want to comply, well that's the same situation you are in right now only with a much larger number of people with much stronger arguments against getting the vaccine due to their extremely-low statistical risk.

                                I don't want mandates at all, but if they are going to force them on people then it needs to at least make some sense if the goal is to limit hospitilzations (is that where the goalposts are now, I can't keep track), especially in light of Omicron's severity (or lack there-of).
                                Forget the tropes. My question stands: how are you going to even identify the cohort with comorbidities that you want to focus on? Its a simple question. I doubt there is a simple answer. But I am sure that those behind it won't let the fact that it won't work in practice distract them from their insistence that it works in theory.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X