Tweet
Originally posted by Peck
View Post
The Rules of Pacers Digest
Hello everyone,
Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.
A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.
Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.
Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.
Rule #1
Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:
"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"
"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"
"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"
"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"
"He/she is just delusional"
"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"
"I'm going to take a moment to point and
/ laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"
"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good?"
In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.
We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.
Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.
That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.
A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.
There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.
Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.
In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.
Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.
If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!
All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.
Rule #2
If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.
The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.
The right places to do so are:
A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.
B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.
If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.
Rule #3
If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.
When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:
A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.
B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.
To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!
Rule #4
Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.
Rule #5
When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.
An example:
If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:
http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star
Rule #6
We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.
The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.
Rule #7
Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.
It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).
We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).
However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.
Rule #8
We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.
Rule #9
Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.
Rule #10
We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.
Rule #11
Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.
A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.
Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.
Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.
Rule #1
Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:
"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"
"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"
"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"
"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"
"He/she is just delusional"
"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"
"I'm going to take a moment to point and
/ laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*""Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good?
"In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.
We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.
Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.
That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.
A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.
There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.
Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.
In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.
Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.
If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!
All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.
Rule #2
If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.
The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.
The right places to do so are:
A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.
B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.
If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.
Rule #3
If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.
When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:
A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.
B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.
To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!
Rule #4
Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.
Rule #5
When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.
An example:
If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:
http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star
Rule #6
We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.
The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.
Rule #7
Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.
It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).
We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).
However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.
Rule #8
We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.
Rule #9
Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.
Rule #10
We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.
Rule #11
Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less
-
My sister is a nurse at a major hospital in town. She is saying the numbers are staggering, though as you say they are not as critical.
-
The risk of it and the fact that I know people like Bball will line up quickly and further test it out.Originally posted by Gamble1 View PostComment
-
So.... The Gov has ended Stage 5 of the reopening plan.
He said what I've been saying for sometime... Being in Stage 5 was sending the wrong signal. It was seen as the end of the pandemic.
What he didn't say (that I have heard yet) is what stage we're now in. It sounds like a reboot. Like the plan is off the table and we're doing targeted restrictions, and widespread restrictions, but in a way not addressed in the original reopening plan, and we're rolling back, but to something different than what was in the original plan.
He also said the other thing that I said... Giving the tools they gave to local officials didn't always get used as intended. IOW, giving counties the information on how bad or good they were doing didn't always mean a bad county was taking the action the state expected. Some did, he said, and some didn't.Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.
------
"A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."
-John WoodenComment
-
- Indystar.com -
- Holcomb started the news conference by looking back at the state's previous restrictions, thanking Hoosiers for sacrifices they made. But he said many people here and around the country have let their guards down in recent months.
- Citing increases in positivity rates and strained hospital resources since the state entered Stage 5, Holcomb announced Indiana is leaving Stage 5 and the Back on Track plan.
- Beginning Nov. 15 and lasting for a month, Holcomb is reinstituting pandemic restrictions based on the state's color-coded map showing viral spread. Orange counties will be limited to social gatherings of 50 people or fewer. Red counties will be limited to gatherings of 25 people or fewer.
- In orange counties:
- Attendance at winter indoor K-12 extracurricular and cocurricular events is limited to 25% capacity.
- Capacity in common areas and break rooms should be reduced.
- Community recreational sports leagues and tournaments may continue with attendance limited to participants, required personnel and parents/guardians.
- In red counties:
- Attendance at winter indoor K-12 extracurricular and co-curricular activities, including IHSAA sports, is limited to participants, support personnel and parents/guardians.
- Local officials may consider limiting hours for the operation of bars, nightclubs and restaurants.
- Community recreational sports leagues and tournaments may continue with participants, required personnel and parents/guardians only.
- Senior care activities are suspended.
- Hospitals, long-term care facilities and other congregate settings may impose visitation limits.
- Common areas and break rooms should be closed.
- "We are in the midst of a second surge," he said.
- The number of hospitalized COVID-19 patients is at an all-time high, and Holcomb said some hospitals have said their patient numbers may double in coming weeks. "Hospitals and health care providers are experiencing staff shortages and increasing staff, including themselves, are having to call in sick," Holcomb said.
- He said it falls on those of us outside the hospitals and outside health care to take action to protect the capacity of Indiana hospitals.
- Holcomb said face coverings and social distancing will remain required. "We have to do these things that work," he said.
- Indiana will make $20 million available to local governments to support virus mitigation efforts, including reviewing event plans, training and more.
- He said he knew these restrictions will be difficult during the holiday seasons and asked for people to keep gatherings small. "The holiday season is a time that reminds us to be thankful and have hope," he said. "And my hope is that this year our actions can be a gift that we give to one another."
- Holcomb encouraged Hoosiers to get tested.
- State Health Commissioner Dr. Kristina Box said hospitals are inundated with patients.
- She said this difficult year will continue to get more difficult if we don't follow preventative measures.
- Box asked local leaders to expedite the process to request state funds to help mitigation records.
- The health commissioner said there is no truth to rumors that the state's vaccine allocation from the federal government would be tied to how high the case counts are. She said vaccine doses will be tied to population.
- She added to calls for people who can help staff long-term care facilities. Indiana National Guard soldiers remain in the facilities.
- Box said the state will provide guidance for the holidays at next week's news conference.
Last edited by Bball; 11-11-2020, 03:35 PM.Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.
------
"A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."
-John WoodenComment
-
This could have been predicted by anyone with a view of history. What I feared is coming true and I am really afraid that my greatest fears will come true. I will tell you what that is.
So many people in hospitals that the public will be told to stay home if they are under a certain age or not with certain comorbidities. Relatively young and healthy people may die at home this winter right in front of their family's eyes.
Of course, if they spin out this vaccine fast enough maybe that changes. I am not holding my breath.
Damn it, I wish this virus would have spread more this summer in a diluted state. Fortunately it seems to have done a little of that given people not suffering as bad from it compared to earlier this year. Some of that is treatments but not all.Last edited by BlueNGold; 11-11-2020, 04:23 PM.Comment
-
What risk do you think there is? Again not trying to bait here but genuinely want to know what people think the risk are.Originally posted by BlueNGold View PostComment
-
All vaccines come with a risk. A rushed vaccine comes with a heightened risk. Don't believe me? Maybe you will believe this guy:Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
“The basic history lesson when it comes to vaccines and immunization is that there always has been a risk and there always will be a risk,” says David S. Jones, PhD, the A. Bernard Ackerman professor of the culture of medicine at Harvard University.
...or maybe you and others on this board are smarter than this professor out of Harvard.Comment
-
More specifically, people have died from innoculations, been paralyzed and contracted what the vaccine was intended to prevent.
That doesn't mean I would not take it. It means with a rushed schedule (probably 3 times as fast), there are heightened risks of all of the above.
Doesn't mean I would fear taking it early. I just don't have to be the first to take it and I see no need to be the first.Comment
-
No, but he was speaking in late winter or early spring about a rush to create the vaccine, immediately make 330,000,000 doses and start the injections.Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
What he was saying was more about the first people to get the vaccine in the trials, or the concern if we skipped the trials.
Also, thankfully, we weren't starting from scratch. We'd actually done quite a bit of research on coronavirus vaccines, but never had the need to push them to the finish line. Or said better, never received the funding to push one to the finish line.
So, no, I'm not smarter than the Harvard professor, but I am smart enough to read the article, his comment in context, and understand what I'm reading.
Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.
------
"A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."
-John WoodenComment
-
Again not baiting you. The point of it was to discuss not argue.Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
The risk of vaccines hasn't remain the same over the years. The technology has changed and the data collection has become more refined. I have had heard from many people that they are hesitant about a vaccine. I am not sure the health risk of the vaccine is being rushed. The efficacy is being rushed for sure but most adverse reactions to vaccines happen fast. Like within the first 6 weeks so I am just trying to understand peoples hesitation to it.Comment
-
https://www.billboard.com/articles/b...Yy7r6MKtrXoFVQ
How Ticketmaster Plans to Check Your Vaccine Status for Concerts
For those wondering about a path back to concerts and sporting events with real crowds, the above link shows you what is in the works.
The Cliff Notes version is a phone app that would get the status of your vaccination and/or Covid-19 test results that you would then need for entry.Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.
------
"A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."
-John WoodenComment
-
So I have been reading up on the mRNA vaccine. The cliff note version is this. The body uses mRNA for making proteins for the cell. The m stands for message and the rna is the code of the message. So it goes DNA to mRNA to protein. I am leaving out a couple of steps so not to confuse anyone.
The vaccine basically uses the mRNA code for the covid 19 spike protein which makes up a tiny fraction of the virus. So person gets injected with the message and the cells take in that message and then produce the specific protein found in covid 19.
The cell then says this shouldn't be here and puts the covid 19 protein on the surface of the cell presenting it to the immune system aka the T cells.
The key here is that nothing is alive. The message is reused multiple times making multiple covid 19 proteins which get put on the cell surface like a flag to the immune cells.
The break through with this tech is that mrna is very unstable and they found away to make it stable and mask it.Comment
-
There are so many reasons I could give you, that it would take too long to explain them all. I will just raise a few points.Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
As mentioned, I'm not anti-vaccine. I completely understand and agree that vaccines have a great safety record. So, that's an important factor in why I would take a vaccine.
Also, I know the medical community will probably get the vaccine first and we'll see how it goes. My own sister is a nurse and very pro vaccine.
Now, I also know that mistakes are made when people rush through things. If money is involved, it has a strong tendency to control what people do and say. With a vaccine that might be taken by 3 billion people or more and may be taken multiple times, there is an incredible amount of money involved. Not saying that dictates anything. Just that it's something to be aware of and yes it does raise risks.
I should mention that Eli Lilly (Sydney Taurel) injected a rider to the Homeland Defense Bill to protect vaccine manufacturers from lawsuits. Why? Because $$$...
...and for a recent example:
NIH 'very concerned' about serious side effect in AstraZeneca coronavirus vaccine trial
AstraZeneca "need[s] to be more forthcoming with a potential complication of a vaccine which will eventually be given to millions of people," said Nath. "We would like to see how we can help, but the lack of information makes it difficult to do so."
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/15/healt...ser/index.html
You might say, "well, the NIH was on top of that. See!". But I will say "next time Big Pharma might get it by the NIH"...and I will say "Big Pharma is trying to hide something that could kill people". There is clearly a risk of that and this is just one example. If you take anything from this post, take that.
But do I expect the Pfizer vaccine to be safe and effective? I do. I don't know that it will be safe. Is it safer to wait until a segment of the population get it...or safer to get it asap? I don't know. Maybe I get the virus a month after I could have gotten the vaccine. But what I do know is I'm fine right now. That I know. It's not my opinion. It's not based on studies or clinical trials or safety profiles or geniuses in lab coats. Given my own personal experiences in life along with my confidence in the medical community providing a safe and effective vaccine, I will take the vaccine. Just not early. I'm not going to be early anyway. But I will tell you I would not want to be in the first batch for all of these reasons.
If you want to get to the heart of the matter, I don't blindly trust the medical community. Peer reviewed studies involve peers who are also not perfect. Peers that have mortgages and retirement portfolios. I don't subscribe to the idea there is no corruption, greed and self dealing going on. I don't assume that either. There is a balance.
So it boils down to, people think it will safe. People are often wrong. People are often deceived with billions of dollars are at stake. That doesn't mean I think there's a big conspiracy over the vaccine. It means I will watch it closely and act in my own timeline. I will definitely read up on it before I take anything. I will not be one of the first to take it.
Beyond that, let me tell you a little story and it might make sense to you. It's not about vaccines. But it is about people making decisions that led to tragic outcomes. A friend of mine had multiple elective surgeries due to playing football and ruining his knees and shoulders. Everything was going well until he got an infection in the hospital. Had he not had the surgeries, especially the last one, he would be alive to watch his son get married and take care of his disabled child and be around for his wife. Does this all mean I think there is a risk of death from a vaccination? Not really. In fact no. It just means be careful. Use your judgment. Listen to the experts. Factor in the information they can provide. But don't believe everything you read at face value without also thinking for yourself.
Comment
-
I don't think anyone including me are saying there isn't a risk. I would argue that those risk are relatively small in comparison to the infection.
Secondly it is not just the NIH involved here with vaccine approvals. Its the CDC as well and other agencies. Even people who get vaccinated can self report and stop a trial.
The interesting thing is that you can say you do not blindly trust the medical community and I would say they wouldn't want you to either. That is the point of having the conversations though with them.
At the end of the day it is a personal decision but it still is curious to me the level of people with this hesitation.Comment
-
Just a small comment. Not a vaccine but I have seen loved ones have adverse reactions. A couple were severe. But I will say the worst was with a supplement that appears to be permanent damage. No question I have to have a very good and necessary reason to take any medication and frankly I am wary of supplements. Food? Generally ok with that. So my view is colored by that a bit. Not a big fan of medication ir anything elective. Doesn’t mean I will not take medicine or do a procedure but it has to be near imperative.Originally posted by Gamble1 View PostComment
Comment