Aaron Rodgers and Covid

He then went on to mention civil rights icon Martin Luther King Jr., saying, "The great MLK said, 'You have a moral obligation to object to unjust rules and rules that make no sense.'"

Aaron Rodgers, the Great White Hope of anti-vaxxers.


I'm so glad he's not the Jeopardy host. 


I am a big fan of Rodgers' football skills.  But now I'm wondering if maybe he practiced too many times without a helmet.


So disappointed and annoyed.  It's been a great ride with AR here in Wisconsin, 10+ years, but not so much this year for a couple of reasons, and now this.  I keep visualizing the Packers' young, successful, well-spoken coach with actual smoke coming out of his ears.

I was really impressed last year that the NFL teams managed to stay well and get through the season.  This year....

eta: Although, after actually reading the posted article, i can edge toward giving him a pass on refusing the vaccine if he actually has the stated allergies.  Does not give him a pass on misleading and/or exposing others and himself to the virus by not masking etc.


terp said:

How's he doing?

His team lost. 


And he looks like a moron.


terp said:

How's he doing?

Can't say that I care given that he is peddling a line of **** that is causing harm.  But he is a good QB, so the NFL will find some way to gloss this over.


Aaron Rodgers quite literally signed a binding contract to be a team player.  So the My Freedom! people seem to be overlooking the fact that he has an obligation to make the best choices for the collective called the Green Bay Packers.  A collective that probably includes at least a few staff members who are older and at some risk from COVID even if they're vaccinated.

then of course there's just the bad decision making.  First, it appears from his comments that he self-diagnosed his allergy based on his online "research."  Then there's the fact that taking a drug for an off-label purpose carries its own risk of side effects.  And just the odds of him getting sick and missing at least one game are much, much higher from catching a highly contagious disease like COVID.  And now even if he's recovered, he's facing a not-insignifcant chance of continued symptoms that will affect his performance the rest of this season.  So from a risk/benefit standpoint he made a dumb choice and his team paid the price for at least one game.

and of course the lying, which isn't excusable even under the dubious concept of "my freedom!"  You don't have the freedom to mislead people.  Even if someone wants to defend a right to privacy on this issue, if you want your privacy don't answer the question.  Don't lie about it.


terp said:

How's he doing?

By all accounts, completely free of river blindness.


ridski said:

terp said:

How's he doing?

By all accounts, completely free of river blindness.

 Not only that, he now has natural immunity to covid 19.  While obviously true, many studies show that natural immunity is more effective and long lasting than any other medical treatment available right now.


ml1 said:

Aaron Rodgers quite literally signed a binding contract to be a team player.  So the My Freedom! people seem to be overlooking the fact that he has an obligation to make the best choices for the collective called the Green Bay Packers.  A collective that probably includes at least a few staff members who are older and at some risk from COVID even if they're vaccinated.

then of course there's just the bad decision making.  First, it appears from his comments that he self-diagnosed his allergy based on his online "research."  Then there's the fact that taking a drug for an off-label purpose carries its own risk of side effects.  And just the odds of him getting sick and missing at least one game are much, much higher from catching a highly contagious disease like COVID.  And now even if he's recovered, he's facing a not-insignifcant chance of continued symptoms that will affect his performance the rest of this season.  So from a risk/benefit standpoint he made a dumb choice and his team paid the price for at least one game.

and of course the lying, which isn't excusable even under the dubious concept of "my freedom!"  You don't have the freedom to mislead people.  Even if someone wants to defend a right to privacy on this issue, if you want your privacy don't answer the question.  Don't lie about it.

 Either you can quantify the harm of his actions or you might just be a self righteous prick.


terp said:

 Either you can quantify the harm of his actions or you might just be a self righteous prick.

 projection. 


ml1 said:

terp said:

 Either you can quantify the harm of his actions or you might just be a self righteous prick.

 projection. 

 Sounds like not a lot of harm, eh?  I wonder why so much outrage.  I mean you say you disagree with a lot of things that cause great harm(i.e. Obama's FP), but never care to comment.  Why the enthusiasm about Rodgers who has harmed exactly no one?


terp said:

 Sounds like not a lot of harm, eh?  I wonder why so much outrage.  I mean you say you disagree with a lot of things that cause great harm(i.e. Obama's FP), but never care to comment.  Why the enthusiasm about Rodgers who has harmed exactly no one?

 the Packers played a game without their HOF QB. He harmed everyone in their organization who busts their **** to win football games. Not a big deal in the grand scheme of planet earth. But he hurt his teammates. 

So not zero harm. 


ml1 said:

terp said:

 Sounds like not a lot of harm, eh?  I wonder why so much outrage.  I mean you say you disagree with a lot of things that cause great harm(i.e. Obama's FP), but never care to comment.  Why the enthusiasm about Rodgers who has harmed exactly no one?

 the Packers played a game without their HOF QB. He harmed everyone in their organization who busts their **** to win football games. Not a big deal in the grand scheme of planet earth. But he hurt his teammates. 

So not zero harm. 

 Ha.  Wow.  


terp said:

 Ha.  Wow.  

I try not to be as insulting as you are but I have to say that your responses are pretty stupid. My initial comment talked about his actions as a team member. And yeah, he cost them a game on Sunday by not being there. 

Is there really a dispute over whether football is a team sport or a bunch of guys doing what they think is best for themselves? 


Just because you may not be insulting to someone likely to read your post doesn't mean it's not insulting.  Would you say that to his face?


And considering we are talking about a lost football game, perhaps this should be moved to sports.  


terp said:

 Not only that, he now has natural immunity to covid 19.  While obviously true, many studies show that natural immunity is more effective and long lasting than any other medical treatment available right now.

This is probably pointless to ask you @terp , but can you cite a few of these "many studies"? I'm finding more studies citing the opposite, like this:

(Excerpt below from Sept 2021 article)

https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/covid-19-studies-natural-immunity-versus-vaccination

If you've had COVID-19 before, does your natural immunity work better than a vaccine?

The data is clear: Natural immunity is not better. The COVID-19 vaccines create more effective and longer-lasting immunity than natural immunity from infection.

  • More than a third of COVID-19 infections result in zero protective antibodies
  • Natural immunity fades faster than vaccine immunity
  • Natural immunity alone is less than half as effective than natural immunity plus vaccination

The takeaway: Get vaccinated, even if you've had COVID-19. Vaccine immunity is stronger than natural immunity.

"Natural immunity can be spotty. Some people can react vigorously and get a great antibody response. Other people don't get such a great response," says infectious diseases expert Mark Rupp, MD. "Clearly, vaccine-induced immunity is more standardized and can be longer-lasting."

A third of infections don't get any protective antibodies

Some people who get COVID-19 receive no protection from reinfection – their natural immunity is nonexistent. A recent study found that 36% of COVID-19 cases didn't result in development of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The people had different levels of illness – most had moderate disease, but some were asymptomatic and some experienced severe COVID-19.

From the Emerging Infectious Diseases published study:

In summary, we show that patients with low SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in their respiratory tract are less likely to mount a systemic antibody response.

I should add that one of the many tragedies that are due to the covid dogma are healthcare workers who worked while it was really scary and got infected.  Now, many now do not want the jab as they have natural immunity.  However, these former heroes are being smeared as anti-vaxxers and are losing their jobs. 


terp said:

Just because you may not be insulting to someone likely to read your post doesn't mean it's not insulting.  Would you say that to his face?

 dude, you called me a prick.  vampire

And fwiw, if I was a sports media person asking questions of Aaron Rodgers I would not hesitate to ask him these questions. 


terp said:

And considering we are talking about a lost football game, perhaps this should be moved to sports.  

 in this country sports, especially the NFL, is hugely important. You may not be a sports fan, but it would be ignorant to deny it. 


How exactly does one test to see it they have "Natural immunity"?  

Do you have any idea what those studies actually prove?  Are any of the peer-reviewed?

Decent summary on natural immunity:

https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/covid-19-studies-natural-immunity-versus-vaccination


jamie said:

How exactly does one test to see it they have "Natural immunity"?  

Do you have any idea what those studies actually prove?  Are any of the peer-reviewed?

Decent summary on natural immunity:

https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/covid-19-studies-natural-immunity-versus-vaccination

 shouldn't someone point out that acquiring "natural immunity" requires contracting a totally preventable disease?  

Can't we openly discuss how stupid it is to get an infection in order to protect yourself from getting that infection? 



ml1 said:

Can't we openly discuss how stupid it is to get an infection in order to protect yourself from getting that infection?

I’m still working my way through the idea that the measure of behavior is entirely the result and not at all the risk.


jamie said:

Do you have any idea what those studies actually prove? Are any of the peer-reviewed?

Some may be; the medRxiv links are not. More to sprout’s point, none of them say natural immunity is better than vaccinated immunity.


ml1 said:

jamie said:

How exactly does one test to see it they have "Natural immunity"?  

Do you have any idea what those studies actually prove?  Are any of the peer-reviewed?

Decent summary on natural immunity:

https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/covid-19-studies-natural-immunity-versus-vaccination

 shouldn't someone point out that acquiring "natural immunity" requires contracting a totally preventable disease?  

Can't we openly discuss how stupid it is to get an infection in order to protect yourself from getting that infection? 


 How is it totally preventable?


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.