Vaccine

whatithink said:
Your faith in the constitution protecting you is amusing.
Click to expand...
The point is I am contrasting our country with those protections in place vs those who don't have them...ie Australia and NZ.

Since their governments didn't have hurdles to overcome, they simply did what they wanted.

Us having a constitution put the brakes on those desires by some in power.

You are correct that it is far from perfect protection. However I would rather start off having them in place vs being in a country where one does not.
 
I’m waiting for one of you to realize that declining immunity pokes a big hole in your “protect only the vulnerable” plan.

Remember all your posts about how you can do whatever you like because the elderly are vaccinated? Well, the immune response is weakest among the elderly. If declining immunity is a major problem, they get hit first.

Conveniently, no actual change to personal behavior is warranted. Regardless of what the facts are, all logic leads to the same convenient place:

If the vaccine works, then you can do whatever you want because everyone else is protected.
If the vaccine doesn’t work, then you can do whatever you want because it was all inevitable* anyway.

*Inevitable, except for Asians. But we can’t be Asian, so they don’t count.
 
Desert Hound said:
The point is I am contrasting our country with those protections in place vs those who don't have them...ie Australia and NZ.

Since their governments didn't have hurdles to overcome, they simply did what they wanted.

Us having a constitution put the brakes on those desires by some in power.

You are correct that it is far from perfect protection. However I would rather start off having them in place vs being in a country where one does not.
Click to expand...
I get the point, however my point is that the "protection" offered by the constitution is paper thin (sic), as it is open to the interpretation of SCOTUS at a moment in time. It also takes time to get to that point, and restrictions can be in place while that goes ahead - the current TX case being a perfect example of where SCOTUS have allowed it to stay in place.

Some examples, the 1st amendment has exceptions, as decided by SCOTUS, they could be expanded by SCOTUS on a whim. The 2nd could be interpreted by SCOTUS to ensure you had to part of a militia to be in possession of a fire arm, with those regulated militias (& membership of) being approved by the "authorities". So SCOTUS could disarm the population and take away your right to say anything about it if aligned with a Presidency/Congress that was cool with that. That's how useful the constitution is.
 
The guidance reads:
For people who are unvaccinated or are more than six months out from their second mRNA dose (or more than 2 months after the J&J vaccine) and not yet boosted, CDC now recommends quarantine for 5 days followed by strict mask use for an additional 5 days. Alternatively, if a 5-day quarantine is not feasible, it is imperative that an exposed person wear a well-fitting mask at all times when around others for 10 days after exposure. Individuals who have received their booster shot do not need to quarantine following an exposure, but should wear a mask for 10 days after the exposure.
Click to expand...


1640708979912.png
 
Desert Hound said:
The point is I am contrasting our country with those protections in place vs those who don't have them...ie Australia and NZ.

Since their governments didn't have hurdles to overcome, they simply did what they wanted.

Us having a constitution put the brakes on those desires by some in power.

You are correct that it is far from perfect protection. However I would rather start off having them in place vs being in a country where one does not.
Click to expand...
No one is arguing Constitutional protections are bad. There is a solid point that ours are insufficient, especially because of the SCOTUS as single point of failure on constitutional law. ( Oddly, a role that is not in the text of the constitution. )

A two party system combined with a politicized court is causing legitimacy problems for the court. We see it as a red court or a blue court. And we’re correct.

As the court weakens roe v wade, it’s going to knock court credibility down another notch. What will people think of the change? Half will say the old court was politicied and the new one is right. Half will say the new court is politicized and the old one was right. Neither statement is actually expressing faith in the court. Both are saying “I trust the court, but only if my team controls it.”
 
dad4 said:
No one is arguing Constitutional protections are bad. There is a solid point that ours are insufficient, especially because of the SCOTUS as single point of failure on constitutional law. ( Oddly, a role that is not in the text of the constitution. )

A two party system combined with a politicized court is causing legitimacy problems for the court. We see it as a red court or a blue court. And we’re correct.

As the court weakens roe v wade, it’s going to knock court credibility down another notch. What will people think of the change? Half will say the old court was politicied and the new one is right. Half will say the new court is politicized and the old one was right. Neither statement is actually expressing faith in the court. Both are saying “I trust the court, but only if my team controls it.”
Click to expand...
Nice try dad. Look, when my kids catch me when I'm wrong, I always own it and tell them, "Kids, I was wrong." If i don't tell them I wrong, they will surely let me know when i'm wrong. I have an open door policy with my wife and kids. No taboo with me man. I dont own my wife or my kids. They can do whatever they want and I will always be here for a hug surrounded with love. I told my wife I will get her to the finish line with mercy and forgiveness. The people making our lives ((unless you have income for life)) a living nightmare have Big Karma coming. Do not seek revenge is my new motto. Justice will come and you better not be caught being a liar and a cheater at that time. It will not be good for mankind.
 
dad4 said:
I’m waiting for one of you to realize that declining immunity pokes a big hole in your “protect only the vulnerable” plan.

Remember all your posts about how you can do whatever you like because the elderly are vaccinated? Well, the immune response is weakest among the elderly. If declining immunity is a major problem, they get hit first.

Conveniently, no actual change to personal behavior is warranted. Regardless of what the facts are, all logic leads to the same convenient place:

If the vaccine works, then you can do whatever you want because everyone else is protected.
If the vaccine doesn’t work, then you can do whatever you want because it was all inevitable* anyway.

*Inevitable, except for Asians. But we can’t be Asian, so they don’t count.
Click to expand...
Realize?? That train left the station months and months ago. Endemic covid is here, has been for quite some time. It's you that doesn't realize that. Clinical trials continue in the quest for a vaccine that offers immunity. Less than perfect anti virals are headed your way. Early treatment by your primary care.

What are these personal behaviors that have to change? If you mean changes to the rules of how we interact with covid, they are happening. Less quarantine time, no testing required after quanrantine, etc. Plenty of personal behavior will be dicated in order to alleviate staff shortages at hospitals and the labor force. Don't worry, boosters will likley be EU authorized here very shortly, even though the FDA isn't even convinced they are neccessary for those under 65.
 
dad4 said:
I’m waiting for one of you to realize that declining immunity pokes a big hole in your “protect only the vulnerable” plan.

Remember all your posts about how you can do whatever you like because the elderly are vaccinated? Well, the immune response is weakest among the elderly. If declining immunity is a major problem, they get hit first.

Conveniently, no actual change to personal behavior is warranted. Regardless of what the facts are, all logic leads to the same convenient place:

If the vaccine works, then you can do whatever you want because everyone else is protected.
If the vaccine doesn’t work, then you can do whatever you want because it was all inevitable* anyway.

*Inevitable, except for Asians. But we can’t be Asian, so they don’t count.
Click to expand...
You inadvertently hit on the problem with your own logic The first question is does the vaccine “work”. If yes there’s no problem. If no there’s a problem. The next question is if there’s a problem what do you want to do about it. Be Asian isn’t an option. So the question is (which you always dodge) what do you want to do about it

if you think there’s declining immunity what do you want to do about it and how long (what’s the off ramp)? Sometimes the answer to “something must be done” is “nothing can be done” or “very little”. It’s childish not to accept that reality.
 
what-happened said:
Realize?? That train left the station months and months ago. Endemic covid is here, has been for quite some time. It's you that doesn't realize that. Clinical trials continue in the quest for a vaccine that offers immunity. Less than perfect anti virals are headed your way. Early treatment by your primary care.

What are these personal behaviors that have to change? If you mean changes to the rules of how we interact with covid, they are happening. Less quarantine time, no testing required after quanrantine, etc. Plenty of personal behavior will be dicated in order to alleviate staff shortages at hospitals and the labor force. Don't worry, boosters will likley be EU authorized here very shortly, even though the FDA isn't even convinced they are neccessary for those under 65.
Click to expand...
Endemic does not have to mean ubiquitous. We chose that option.

We could have chosen to meet outdoors, get vaccinated, wear masks, and keep our distance. We didn't. And we still aren't.

I certainly don't mean the CDC change. The CDC change is mostly about helping businesses meet staffing needs by allowing people to come in while sick. I'd be curious to see why they think it will work, instead of just accelerating the Omicron wave.
 
dad4 said:
Endemic does not have to mean ubiquitous. We chose that option.

We could have chosen to meet outdoors, get vaccinated, wear masks, and keep our distance. We didn't. And we still aren't.

I certainly don't mean the CDC change. The CDC change is mostly about helping businesses meet staffing needs by allowing people to come in while sick. I'd be curious to see why they think it will work, instead of just accelerating the Omicron wave.
Click to expand...

The "meet outdoors" thing is where your policy begins to fall apart. How exactly you going to do that. Shut down work (if just some, which ones), shut down schools, close indoor dining and bars, prohibit indoor sports, prohibit hair salons, prohibit cannabis sales, prohibit dentists? ANd then how exactly are you going to enforce it? At this point, are you still urging Australian style lockdowns, and if so by how long? Just urging people to meet outside isn't policy....it's preaching.

"keep our distance" represents the same problem. Where and how? Otherwise your policy is just Phase 1: Collect Underpants, Phase 2: ?, Phase 3: Profit.

After you articulate your policy step 3 is does the policy work. If yes, move to step 4. If no, move back to step 2. Step 4 is does the policy have an articulated offramp. Step 5 is if the policy is politically feasible.
 
dad4 said:
No one is arguing Constitutional protections are bad. There is a solid point that ours are insufficient, especially because of the SCOTUS as single point of failure on constitutional law. ( Oddly, a role that is not in the text of the constitution. )

A two party system combined with a politicized court is causing legitimacy problems for the court. We see it as a red court or a blue court. And we’re correct.

As the court weakens roe v wade, it’s going to knock court credibility down another notch. What will people think of the change? Half will say the old court was politicied and the new one is right. Half will say the new court is politicized and the old one was right. Neither statement is actually expressing faith in the court. Both are saying “I trust the court, but only if my team controls it.”
Click to expand...
You still have to contend with the unknowable effects of an experimental drug on yourself, and worse, your kids. Many of us don't.

I see why you want a mandate, misery loves company. Good luck.
 
dad4 said:
We could have chosen to meet outdoors, get vaccinated, wear masks, and keep our distance. We didn't. And we still aren't.
Click to expand...
More and more realize that stuff doesn't work.

We cannot meet outdoors? Most of what we do for work, school, etc is indoors. You are simply never going to change that.
Vaccinated? O rips through the vaxxed and unvaxxed. Being vaxxed at this point doesn't stop the spread.
Masks? O is 70x more infectious. Most of what we do is inside.
Keep our distance?

None of the above measures stopped the virus.

More and more people and gov entities are coming to the conclusion that this is endemic and one just has to live with it.
 
Grace T. said:
You inadvertently hit on the problem with your own logic The first question is does the vaccine “work”. If yes there’s no problem. If no there’s a problem. The next question is if there’s a problem what do you want to do about it. Be Asian isn’t an option. So the question is (which you always dodge) what do you want to do about it

if you think there’s declining immunity what do you want to do about it and how long (what’s the off ramp)? Sometimes the answer to “something must be done” is “nothing can be done” or “very little”. It’s childish not to accept that reality.
Click to expand...
I was mocking you. "Do vaccines work" is not a yes/no question, nor does it have a one dimensional answer.
 
dad4 said:
I was mocking you. "Do vaccines work" is not a yes/no question, nor does it have a one dimensional answer.
Click to expand...

As we have discussed before, it depends on the definition of work (which is why I put it in quotes). In your example, it's a. whether they are bullet proof for the eldery and immunocompromised....which is clear the answer is now no. and b. whether they stop community spread....which again the answer is no, especially in light of the omicron. You used a subtle insult (despite always complaining about ads yourself) but you inadvertently revealed the problems with your own logic, so the eggs on your face.

And then, yet again, despite people pointing out with you the problems of "social distancing" and "indoors", you decline yet again to get to the meat of your response and explain your policy. As usual, all that you are left with is preaching, and yelling at everyone to "do better".
 
whatithink said:
I get the point, however my point is that the "protection" offered by the constitution is paper thin (sic), as it is open to the interpretation of SCOTUS at a moment in time. It also takes time to get to that point, and restrictions can be in place while that goes ahead - the current TX case being a perfect example of where SCOTUS have allowed it to stay in place.

Some examples, the 1st amendment has exceptions, as decided by SCOTUS, they could be expanded by SCOTUS on a whim. The 2nd could be interpreted by SCOTUS to ensure you had to part of a militia to be in possession of a fire arm, with those regulated militias (& membership of) being approved by the "authorities". So SCOTUS could disarm the population and take away your right to say anything about it if aligned with a Presidency/Congress that was cool with that. That's how useful the constitution is.
Click to expand...
The Constitution and Scotus work, but are not perfect. The vast majority of SCOTUS decisions are unanimous. Your concern for the politicization of the Court is a fair concern, but in most cases is greatly exaggerated by one side for fear mongering purposes. Remember how ACB was vilified by the left in her confirmation hearing because she was going to overturn Obamacare leaving people to die without healthcare? Well the that case has been ruled on and she voted in favor of the Obamacare issue.

Even though they didn't block the Texas abortion law (which may or may not be a State issue), SCOTUS ruled 8-1 to allow the lawsuits against the law to move forward.

abcnews.go.com

Supreme Court defies critics with wave of unanimous decisions

The nine justices have charted a surprising course down the middle in 2021, handing down more unanimous opinions than any time in at least the last seven years.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com

An ABC News analysis found 67% of the court's opinions in cases argued during the term that ends this month have been unanimous or near-unanimous with just one justice dissenting.

That compares to just 46% of unanimous or near-unanimous decisions during the 2019 term and the 48% average unanimous decision rate of the past decade, according to SCOTUSblog.
 
watfly said:
The Constitution and Scotus work, but are not perfect. The vast majority of SCOTUS decisions are unanimous. Your concern for the politicization of the Court is a fair concern, but in most cases is greatly exaggerated by one side for fear mongering purposes. Remember how ACB was vilified by the left in her confirmation hearing because she was going to overturn Obamacare leaving people to die without healthcare? Well the that case has been ruled on and she voted in favor of the Obamacare issue.

Even though they didn't block the Texas abortion law (which may or may not be a State issue), SCOTUS ruled 8-1 to allow the lawsuits against the law to move forward.

abcnews.go.com

Supreme Court defies critics with wave of unanimous decisions

The nine justices have charted a surprising course down the middle in 2021, handing down more unanimous opinions than any time in at least the last seven years.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com

An ABC News analysis found 67% of the court's opinions in cases argued during the term that ends this month have been unanimous or near-unanimous with just one justice dissenting.

That compares to just 46% of unanimous or near-unanimous decisions during the 2019 term and the 48% average unanimous decision rate of the past decade, according to SCOTUSblog.
Click to expand...
I don't think people realize how frequently they have many members on board with their decisions to create large majority opinions.
 
Grace T. said:
As we have discussed before, it depends on the definition of work (which is why I put it in quotes). In your example, it's a. whether they are bullet proof for the eldery and immunocompromised....which is clear the answer is now no. and b. whether they stop community spread....which again the answer is no, especially in light of the omicron. You used a subtle insult (despite always complaining about ads yourself) but you inadvertently revealed the problems with your own logic, so the eggs on your face.

And then, yet again, despite people pointing out with you the problems of "social distancing" and "indoors", you decline yet again to get to the meat of your response and explain your policy. As usual, all that you are left with is preaching, and yelling at everyone to "do better".
Click to expand...
My fake argument only sounds convincing if you are incapable of contemplating questions which lack a yes/no answer.

Why should we wear masks? Do we trust our vaccine or not?

For comparison, why do you wear a seat belt? Do you trust your brakes or not?

It's the same stupid argument.
 
dad4 said:
My fake argument only sounds convincing if you are incapable of contemplating questions which lack a yes/no answer.

Why should we wear masks? Do we trust our vaccine or not?

For comparison, why do you wear a seat belt? Do you trust your brakes or not?

It's the same stupid argument.
Click to expand...
And that's where your math fails. Why you should have spent more time with logic. To get policy, you have to ascribe yes or no answers. It's yes or no to definitional question. It's why we have decision trees. For example...for seatbelts...do seatbelts "work" with "work" being defined as an x reduction in deaths.

But in the scenario you laid out (which had 2 contrasting scenarios for whether the vaccine "worked"), there are two questions that need answering: a. Do they "work" for the elderly and immunocompromised ("work" being defined as reduced to a statistically insignificant chance of death, the answer being what we now know as no), and b. Do they "work" for preventing transmission ("work" being defined as a substantial reduction in the ability to catch and transmit COVID, with which the omicron we also know the answer is no).

Now particular scenarios might be much more complicated than that (which is why policy making is not perfect and precise like mathematics) but it does require us to get to yes or no answer if we are to proceed with policy solutions. On your decision tree, we are still stuck in phase 2, what are your preferred solutions, which you still continue to duck, given what's been pointed out to you now by numerous people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top