criley4way

And many people lacking background, experience and context mistake information for understanding. Great that you don’t get the flu shot. Flu is not airborne transmissible the way SARS COVID-2 is. Most strains of flu are far less contagious and less lethal than this COVID. The flu virus comes in dozens of different strains which are slightly to significantly cross protective. COVID-2 has 1 strain with multiple variants and the vaccines are highly effective against all variants. I understand that facts are not going to persuade you to change your mind. But state your case honestly and truthfully. This combination of changing rationale and facts out of context is or at least should be the realm of politicians and advertisements not adult debate. No laws do as do social contracts. Public health overrules religious freedom. If your religious beliefs put others in danger they are not protected.

This is really a major reason to get the vaccine. Were COVID primarily a threat to the individual I wouldn’t care, however until this virus is at an extremely low level community spread present a risk to everyone. You might be fine but you can transmit to someone at risk.

We have a fairly good idea if there was a strong immune response generated. Agree this is not commonly available like a pertussis titer. But the data clearly exists based on the ongoing follow up studies. So it might not be perfect but you could get an insight.

In general immune response from the vaccine occurs 12-24 hr after and is typically stronger for the 2nd dose. Please be careful. Immunosuppressants can reduce the effectiveness of the vaccine. If you are able try and get an antibody titer. Not only flu but also colds. Not having kids in daycare or school, not being in offices, stronger hand hygiene and masks make a big difference

If you have 2 clubs with the same distance you have 2 tools doing the same thing. Why not choose 1 and fill another need?

Sort of but the focus is on the quality of shot vs outcome and it is a relative scale.

Agree! Hard and fast don’t have to go together. My thought is you should swing “as hard” as you can while maintaining good control for the shot. Yes that is vague. There is a point where sequence becomes erratic and a point where shape and contact become noticeably more predictable. somewhere between those 2 points is the optimal balance for you to score and what that feels like is unique to the golfer. For me it is as hard as I can while feeling like the club stays in front of my chest. That is not what the swing looks like or is but hat is the feel for me. As soon as I swing harder than that feel contact, face to path and low point suffer.

I have done this in the past with a 1-3 or 1-5 grade. 1 is shot lost or requires an amazing recovery due to a poor swing, 2 maybe a shot due to a bad spot due to the direction and/or shape, because the shot was not what you planned (a double cross) or terrible contact (thinned or fat), 3 is acceptable outcome general shape was right, contact was ok to good, 4 is good contact he shot you planned but not great, 5 is exactly what you imagined it terms of distance, reaction, shape and contact. Add to that distance and club.

This not an abstract discussion. First find out how far you hit the last club in your irons, next look at the highest lofted wedge you hit well and can use. One the top end of your bag see what the gaps look like from driver to your longest iron. Those are the ranges you need to fill and the number of slots you have in the bag. Once you have the ranges data should tell you where you need the most help and if a hybrid will be more useful and save more shots than having smaller gaps for the wedges. With a traditional set I had PW-3 and 56, driver 3 and 5w/hyb and a hybrid. Current modern set for me has a 48, 52, 56 wedge, driver, 3 w, 3 hyb. with new short irons (split set) I am evaluating data to see if I need to go 46, 50, 54, 58 and maybe drop the hybrid. all about strokes gained. If you only use the club 1 time every other round it might not be worth it.

Comparing the COVID vaccine to the Flu vaccine is not correct. We get yearly flu vaccines because we are predicting the specific stains that will be likely. People can be infected because they get a non-covered strain or due to incomplete protection. For SARS COV-2 there is 1 strain (now with several variants). It is much more like a Measles vaccine than a flu vaccine. If we need boosters remains to be seen due to incomplete data about the length of protection.

Were this a new vector for the vaccine I would be concerned but this technology is not new. Granted there has not been a successful vaccine until COVID but clinical trials have been done using the technique since the early 2010s. And compared to the current impact of virus it seems like reasonable choice. One must also remember that part of the reason that this trial was completed so quickly was the speed at which they were able to enroll participants and the speed with which statistically significant numbers of people in the control group were diagnosed with the virus. This is not normally the case. It often takes years to get sufficient numbers of volunteers and that long for enough potential exposures to demonstrate efficacy. Fewer exposure opportunities since most people are masked and not gathering. Keep in mind that there are 4-5 other vaccines in phase III trials. some of the other candidates use different technologies that may have fewer allergic responses. By spring I expect that there will be more options

Thank you. I don't always agree with you but I certainly respect you, your opinion and integrity.

For Sturgis postulating that the transmission was due to bars (which I believe were outside) and hotels and not the rally outside is only possible that the transmission did not occur due to the inside portion of the event. And while I agree that each of the outdoor rallies in isolation is a weak correlation to the increase in infections during the following weeks, with multiple events in unique areas it strongly supports the notion that the rallies were a probable cause.

Problem with this statement is you are asking to prove a negative which is extremely difficult if not impossible in most cases. Does the Stanford data meet the ask https://sebotero.github.io/papers/COVIDrallies_10_30_2000.pdf

The benefit of being outdoors does not negate the impact of not wearing masks and not socially distancing in crowds. It is an odds game. Un masked in a small room for 60 min. Probability that either person is positive and infectious x the probability of transmission. Masked reduces that probability by 95%. Reducing the time reduces it. Being in a large space reduces it. Being outdoors reduces it. But if there are 50 people you come into contact with it goes up. Nothing is a guarantee to get it (if I recall transmission between 2 people unmasked in the same home is 50%). And nothing is perfect protection except isolation.