Pool Tournaments During COVID Pandemic

MitchAlsup

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
And yet more evidence that since the emergence of COVID 19, the normal flu virus seems to have all but disappeared. What a wild coincidence....
With people social distancing and staying home, the flu is hard to catch--it only flourishes when we are acting "normal".
 

MitchAlsup

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
A video from a pretty smart Christian guy who analyzes scientific papers on the virus and vaccines. A new paper suggests that the COVID 19 (single strand RNA) virus is permanently modifying a person's DNA.
Most viruses damage DNA in order to take over the cell building machinery and make more copies of themselves.

Those that permantly damage the DNA are killed off by taking a snippet of invading DNA/RNA and placing peculuar gene boundaries around them so the cell defense mechanisms react when they run inot that strand of DNA again. The Can9 protien can then sniff out the attacker before it takes over. That is called immunity.
 

PoolPlayer4

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Mind your business. Stay home and wear your mask. Much safer for you that way.
Not worried about me. Worried about you infecting my family. Not to mention the rest of the population. The more you can spread it without a mask, the greater likelihood it will hit someone I care about. That's my business. I'm asking you to take care of yours by exercising basic courtesy and responsibility for the safety of all of us.
 

Chembry

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
A video from a pretty smart Christian guy who analyzes scientific papers on the virus and vaccines. A new paper suggests that the COVID 19 (single strand RNA) virus is permanently modifying a person's DNA.


Therefore, he suggests that the only way the mRNA vaccines could work effectively, is if they also modify a person's DNA.
_______
He is suggesting that RNA from COVID actually enters the nucleus of the cell and permanently modifies your DNA...Sorry but can't happen

There is one way that RNA could change genes, and that’s through an enzyme called reverse transcriptase, which generates complementary DNA (cDNA) from a viral RNA template. However, reverse transcriptase does not exist in humans except in the presence of retroviruses like HIV. In that case, it’s using its own viral RNA template, not just pulling random mRNA out of the cell. It wants the cell to produce a bunch of new retroviruses by hijacking the DNA.

SARS-CoV-2 is not a retrovirus. The difference is how they replicate within a host.

Only six retroviruses are known to infect humans:
HIV 1
HIV 2
HTLV 1
HTLV 2
HTLV 3
HTLV 4


The reason those people tested positive for HIV (false positive) is the researchers used a fragment of an HIV protein to stabilize the vaccine. I have no Idea why they chose that protein, but I am sure they a kicking themselves now.

We have already been through that mRNA vaccines can't modify a persons DNA...I personally don't want to rehash that, but I will if I have to.
 

jokrswylde

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Not worried about me. Worried about you infecting my family. Not to mention the rest of the population. The more you can spread it without a mask, the greater likelihood it will hit someone I care about. That's my business. I'm asking you to take care of yours by exercising basic courtesy and responsibility for the safety of all of us.
Jesus Christ, I have said at least 3 different times during this thread that I wear a mask pretty much all day every day. I am simply against the government being able to mandate them in privately owned businesses such as a pool hall. If a privately owned business decides that they won't require masks, then you have a very easy choice to make as far as patronizing the business. Just as an anti- masker can certainly choose to stay out of a business that requires them.

If you think the the federal government needs more control in our lives, more say so in how we conduct ourselves in a private establishment, then we truly have no common ground from which to work. We can agree to disagree.
 

HNTFSH

Birds, Bass & Bottoms
Gold Member
Silver Member
If you mean over the next 100 years, possibly. By then, hopefully, the science will progress and it will be more akin to the flu.

If you mean in the next 6 to 12 months before the population is vaccinated, that would likely mean millions of Americans dead. Let's agree, at least, that some minimal action such as a mask wearing and social distancing is a small price to pay to avoid that outcome.
You don't get it. Of course all agree to do what you can to avoid getting it. But the fact is, mask, distance, whatever...including shut-downs are only delaying the inevitable AT BEST. Vaccines, way too early to tell both the effectiveness and the side effects. The people "dying" as unfortunate as that is, all have a few things in common. Mostly elderly and going to pass soon anyway. No one supports a cavalier attitude about that but people are taking many stats WAY out of context relative to the facts. And the Mask Bandits ignore the deaths and misery caused by the shut downs, prohibitions and mask nazi's.
 

HNTFSH

Birds, Bass & Bottoms
Gold Member
Silver Member
Jesus Christ, I have said at least 3 different times during this thread that I wear a mask pretty much all day every day. I am simply against the government being able to mandate them in privately owned businesses such as a pool hall. If a privately owned business decides that they won't require masks, then you have a very easy choice to make as far as patronizing the business. Just as an anti- masker can certainly choose to stay out of a business that requires them.

If you think the the government needs more control in our lives, more say so in how we conduct ourselves in a private establishment, then we truly have no common ground from which to work. We can agree to disagree.
I wear a mask too in stores, etc. Not sure why virtue signalers all have to make these discussions about all or nothing. Not sure wearing one keeps ME safer though. And while we're at it - let's define MASK. Sorry...your bandana don't do shit.
 

Get_A_Grip

Truth Will Set You Free
Silver Member
He is suggesting that RNA from COVID actually enters the nucleus of the cell and permanently modifies your DNA...Sorry but can't happen

There is one way that RNA could change genes, and that’s through an enzyme called reverse transcriptase, which generates complementary DNA (cDNA) from a viral RNA template. However, reverse transcriptase does not exist in humans except in the presence of retroviruses like HIV. In that case, it’s using its own viral RNA template, not just pulling random mRNA out of the cell. It wants the cell to produce a bunch of new retroviruses by hijacking the DNA.

SARS-CoV-2 is not a retrovirus. The difference is how they replicate within a host.

Only six retroviruses are known to infect humans:
HIV 1
HIV 2
HTLV 1
HTLV 2
HTLV 3
HTLV 4


The reason those people tested positive for HIV (false positive) is the researchers used a fragment of an HIV protein to stabilize the vaccine. I have no Idea why they chose that protein, but I am sure they a kicking themselves now.

We have already been through that mRNA vaccines can't modify a persons DNA...I personally don't want to rehash that, but I will if I have to.

That guy in the video is referring to a study conducted and the conclusions of the study. His assumption is that if COVID can result in adding a DNA segment to a person's DNA, that in order for the mRNA vaccines to work, that it would need to correct or remove the added DNA segment. I personally think that I a huge stretch.

That guy is saying that there are 18 different HIV segments in the COVID virus and that the process that you outlined is what is happening to modify DNA. I haven't looked into obtaining the study he is referring to. I just thought that what he presented was interesting.

One thing to keep in mind is that you don't know for sure what the virus or the vaccine can or can't do until more studies are done. We can only speculate based on what we know at this time. More studies are needed to sort things out IMO.




_______
 

Get_A_Grip

Truth Will Set You Free
Silver Member
He is suggesting that RNA from COVID actually enters the nucleus of the cell and permanently modifies your DNA...Sorry but can't happen

There is one way that RNA could change genes, and that’s through an enzyme called reverse transcriptase, which generates complementary DNA (cDNA) from a viral RNA template. However, reverse transcriptase does not exist in humans except in the presence of retroviruses like HIV. In that case, it’s using its own viral RNA template, not just pulling random mRNA out of the cell. It wants the cell to produce a bunch of new retroviruses by hijacking the DNA.

SARS-CoV-2 is not a retrovirus. The difference is how they replicate within a host.

Only six retroviruses are known to infect humans:
HIV 1
HIV 2
HTLV 1
HTLV 2
HTLV 3
HTLV 4


The reason those people tested positive for HIV (false positive) is the researchers used a fragment of an HIV protein to stabilize the vaccine. I have no Idea why they chose that protein, but I am sure they a kicking themselves now.

We have already been through that mRNA vaccines can't modify a persons DNA...I personally don't want to rehash that, but I will if I have to.

I should mention one other thing. When I worked in CMC the first time I was requested by a European country to provide them with a statement certifying that no nano particulates were added to the drug, I was really scratching my head.

It's the first time that I had heard of nano particles being used. This country was obviously concerned and viewed it as a real threat that companies might be adding nano particles to their drugs.

So when rumors arise now about companies nefariously adding nano particles to drugs, I no longer view that as a wild conspiracy theory.

We will only really know what is in these vaccines if independent labs conduct studies and publish their findings.


_______
 

surlytempo

Member
Jesus Christ, I have said at least 3 different times during this thread that I wear a mask pretty much all day every day. I am simply against the government being able to mandate them in privately owned businesses such as a pool hall. If a privately owned business decides that they won't require masks, then you have a very easy choice to make as far as patronizing the business. Just as an anti- masker can certainly choose to stay out of a business that requires them.

If you think the the federal government needs more control in our lives, more say so in how we conduct ourselves in a private establishment, then we truly have no common ground from which to work. We can agree to disagree.
last I checked, privately owned businesses were still required to be in compliance with various federal, state, and municipal bodies in order to legally operate. Being a private owned business does not somehow let you pick and choose which government mandated rules you want to follow.🙄
 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
He's reading the article I posted a link to. The article includes the facts which you are conveniently ignoring based on who is reading the article and the facts. Ridiculous.



_______

You want "ridiculous" -- try a guy in his basement in front of a green screen making YouTube videos, referring to an article from a Bulgarian financed far-right libertarian web site.

Are we suppose to take this seriously?

Lou Figueroa
 

jokrswylde

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
last I checked, privately owned businesses were still required to be in compliance with various federal, state, and municipal bodies in order to legally operate. Being a private owned business does not somehow let you pick and choose which government mandated rules you want to follow.🙄

Last I checked, I never said they weren't required to be in compliance. I swear I think you are arguing just to argue. I simply said I am against MORE federal intrusion into private lives. I am out. I have a teenager at home that would argue with stop sign, I don't humor her either.

Have a Merry Christmas all. Stay safe!
 

HNTFSH

Birds, Bass & Bottoms
Gold Member
Silver Member
Last I checked, I never said they weren't required to be in compliance. I swear I think you are arguing just to argue. I simply said I am against MORE federal intrusion into private lives. I am out. I have a teenager at home that would argue with stop sign, I don't humor her either.

Have a Merry Christmas all. Stay safe!
LOL. 👍 Give me a narrative and I'll find an "expert" that supports it.
 

Chembry

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
That guy in the video is referring to a study conducted and the conclusions of the study. His assumption is that if COVID can result in adding a DNA segment to a person's DNA, that in order for the mRNA vaccines to work, that it would need to correct or remove the added DNA segment. I personally think that I a huge stretch.

That guy is saying that there are 18 different HIV segments in the COVID virus and that the process that you outlined is what is happening to modify DNA. I haven't looked into obtaining the study he is referring to. I just thought that what he presented was interesting.

One thing to keep in mind is that you don't know for sure what the virus or the vaccine can or can't do until more studies are done. We can only speculate based on what we know at this time. More studies are needed to sort things out IMO.




_______
There is some homology between HIV-1 and SARS-CoV-1. I am sure there are some homologies to other viruses as well. Those type of sequence analyses can be performed relatively quickly. I tried for an hour to try to find that study before I responded, but was unable to locate it.
I should mention one other thing. When I worked in CMC the first time I was requested by a European country to provide them with a statement certifying that no nano particulates were added to the drug, I was really scratching my head.

It's the first time that I had heard of nano particles being used. This country was obviously concerned and viewed it as a real threat that companies might be adding nano particles to their drugs.

So when rumors arise now about companies nefariously adding nano particles to drugs, I no longer view that as a wild conspiracy theory.

We will only really know what is in these vaccines if independent labs conduct studies and publish their findings.


_______

Regulatory agencies are now asking for all kinds of statements like that. Nitrosoamines are now a big one and for good reason. I personally haven't come across a nanoparticle statement though.

You are right, some parts of the formulation are protected. The only way to know is to perform a deformulation. There are companies out there that specialize in this.
 

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
this is inaccurate, or a very lay opinion. there was a lawyer from r/billiards who made a post about what your actual "rights" are in the event of an epidemic.



Quoting from https://www.reddit.com/r/billiards/comments/k7l6dg/_/gev6bo3
You think that rights are bestowed upon you by a government? That is a misguided and downright scary way to default to be thinking about rights.

There are two basic kinds of rights. The first are those you are born with by nature of being a human being (albeit one who lives around other human beings with rights too) and they are inherent and inalienable. They exist independent from any government and are your primary or true or fundamental rights. The other kind are your legal rights, as in what some government has decided they think your rights should be.

The two rarely align perfectly, and with some governments they don't align much at all which is why you can never only consider legal rights. What is important is that you know the difference and default to thinking about your rights in terms of what they inherently are and with the legal rights being the secondary consideration. Because of possible repercussions you of course also have to consider what your legally bestowed rights are as well, but those aren't your true rights, and shouldn't be what you default to, at least not exclusively, when you think about what your rights are and should be.

Governments, including the US government, infringe on rights all the time. Some governments don't even consider the right to life, which I think all of humanity would pretty much agree to be the single most important and fundamental basic right we have, to truly be an inalienable right as evidenced by all the hundreds of millions of people who have been murdered by governments because of their ethnicity or political views or any number of other reasons. Governments don't do a great job of getting rights right. Surely you can see that your government bestowed rights aren't the primary and certainly not the exclusive way you should be thinking about rights because they exist independent from any government.

Anyway, while I think I was considering both to some extent at the time, my post was probably coming a bit more from the perspective of your inalienable rights because that should usually be the more primary context used when considering rights, and you seem to have taken it as a purely legal argument.
 

surlytempo

Member
You think that rights are bestowed upon you by a government? That is a misguided and downright scary way to default to be thinking about rights.

There are two basic kinds of rights. The first are those you are born with by nature of being a human being (albeit one who lives around other human beings with rights too) and they are inherent and inalienable. They exist independent from any government and are your primary or true or fundamental rights. The other kind are your legal rights, as in what some government has decided they think your rights should be.

The two rarely align perfectly, and with some governments they don't align much at all which is why you can never only consider legal rights. What is important is that you know the difference and default to thinking about your rights in terms of what they inherently are and with the legal rights being the secondary consideration. Because of possible repercussions you of course also have to consider what your legally bestowed rights are as well, but those aren't your true rights, and shouldn't be what you default to, at least not exclusively, when you think about what your rights are and should be.

Governments, including the US government, infringe on rights all the time. Some governments don't even consider the right to life, which I think all of humanity would pretty much agree to be the single most important and fundamental basic right we have, to truly be an inalienable right as evidenced by all the hundreds of millions of people who have been murdered by governments because of their ethnicity or political views or any number of other reasons. Governments don't do a great job of getting rights right. Surely you can see that your government bestowed rights aren't the primary and certainly not the exclusive way you should be thinking about rights because they exist independent from any government.

Anyway, while I think I was considering both to some extent at the time, my post was probably coming a bit more from the perspective of your inalienable rights because that should usually be the more primary context used when considering rights, and you seem to have taken it as a purely legal argument.
there are no such things such as natural or inalienable rights beyond the basic tenet of agreements they're formed upon. these are enlightenment era concepts not fundamental laws of the universe. and they could hardly be considered universal in any meaningful way. there has never existed a free association of men that did not take exception to such ideals in western or eastern philosophy that I can recall. all rights are capable of being abridged to one extent or another. more simply, whatever right you possess, you possess not because you give it to yourself, but because the society you live in believes that you should have it.
 

arnaldo

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Johnny Archer just tested positive for COVID after competing in the 5 Rivers Holiday Classic 9-ball event at Jac's All American Billiards & Brews in Tennessee. He has a fever and is in pain from coughing. I pray for Johnny to have a full recovery.

Everybody on-site at that event should get tested. It is a shame folks did not wear masks and practice social distancing. Photos below are from the event in Tennessee. When you play pool, you touch the rack, the balls, the table, the bridge, et cetera. COVID germs can be transmitted on surfaces. One person can infect thousands and not know it, and some people get COVID but are asymptomatic and never know it, yet they can transmit the virus to others who can get deathly sick.

Pool events continue to happen daily, yet I read pool people are getting sick and/or dying from COVID daily. Do you think it is okay to have pool tournaments like this during the pandemic? I realize this is a difficult and contentious issue. Pool rooms are suffering from the economy, and pool players, social shooters and pros, have nothing to shoot for anymore. Weekly leagues are ongoing, but I see very few people social distancing or wearing masks.

Share your thoughts.
Question for JAM -- Out of curiosity I wondered whether Keith (whose game I've admired for many years) still sometimes plays in these tournaments, and does he wear a mask when he attends now?

Thanks for any reply.

Arnaldo
 

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
there are no such things such as natural or inalienable rights beyond the basic tenet of agreements they're formed upon. these are enlightenment era concepts not fundamental laws of the universe. and they could hardly be considered universal in any meaningful way. there has never existed a free association of men that did not take exception to such ideals in western or eastern philosophy that I can recall. all rights are capable of being abridged to one extent or another. more simply, whatever right you possess, you possess not because you give it to yourself, but because the society you live in believes that you should have it.
You don't even believe the nonsense that you wrote so I'm not sure why you wrote it. Everybody believes in fundamental inalienable rights although there is disagreement on exactly what those are.

Anybody who accepts that the rights "given" to you by a government are the only rights that exist is an idiot and a subject who will forever be controlled in any way their government desires without opposition and will deserve every bit of the violation and mistreatment they will almost certainly get as a result. Two seconds of contemplation on the topic would quickly reveal how flawed and idiotic your thinking is.
 

surlytempo

Member
You don't even believe the nonsense that you wrote so I'm not sure why you wrote it. Everybody believes in fundamental inalienable rights although there is disagreement on exactly what those are.

Anybody who accepts that the rights "given" to you by a government are the only rights that exist is an idiot and a subject who will forever be controlled in any way their government desires without opposition and will deserve every bit of the violation and mistreatment they will almost certainly get as a result. Two seconds of contemplation on the topic would quickly reveal how flawed and idiotic your thinking is.
lmao. you forgot yourself already huh?

A page or two ago you were preaching about balancing of interests and understanding the other side, preaching about coming together and understanding with compromise and wisdom. And now you can't even grapple with the fact that someone disagrees with your point of view, so you've become unhinged and lash out, accusing anyone who doesn't see it your way as being trapped, subject to and deserving of the inevitable mistreatment that will surely befall them.. all because they simply do not see it your way. bro, your mind is a farce. get over yourself.
 
Top