Vaccine

[whatithink]

I remember him running on that and the press dutifully parroting that talking point.

And yet from day 1 it was basically the same plan. Get the vaxx out and get testing done. There really wasn't much else to do unless one wanted to go authoritarian, and our Constitution doesn't allow that.

Your faith in the constitution protecting you is amusing. Tell it to the millions of Americans who thought the 14th amendment protected them until the Supreme Court came up with the "separate but equal" doctrine to allow Jim Crow laws - a doctrine that ensured separate but rarely if ever equal ... as everyone knew. It took another 60 years for a different Supreme Court to decide BS on that, and then another decade for Congress to legislate. So a century of discrimination for millions of Americans.

In short, the constitution provides whatever protection the current SCOTUS allows or not, nothing more or less. Any document that is still open to interpretation 200+ years later is hardly something to hang your hat on.

 

[Ellejustus]

NEW CDC "Guidance": vaxxed but unboosted are classified the same as being unvaxxed.

Hi fellas, welcome back to being not fully vaxxed. I have a box of masks if you need one.

 

[Ellejustus]

 

[Ellejustus]

CNN Breaking News: New Omicron variant fills up children's hospitals
A five-fold increase in pediatric admissions in New York City this month. Close to double the numbers admitted in Washington, DC. And nationwide, on average, pediatric hospitalizations are up 35% in just the past week.


Dr. Spinner wants all the kids jabbed.

The highly transmissible Omicron variant is teaming up with the busy holiday season to infect more children across the United States than ever before ((ever before???? Omicron is new, right?)), and children's hospitals are bracing for it to get even worse.
"I think we are going to see more numbers now than we have ever seen," Dr. Stanley Spinner, who is chief medical officer and vice president at Texas Children's Pediatrics & Urgent Care in Houston, told CNN.

"Cases are continuing to rise between Christmas gatherings and we're going to continue to see more numbers this week from that," Spinner said in a telephone interview.

"It's almost like you can see the train coming down the track and you're just hoping it doesn't go off the rails," Dr. Claudia Hoyen

"What's concerning on the (pediatric) side is that, unlike the adults -- where they're reporting for the number of adults getting infected relatively low numbers getting hospitalized -- what we're really seeing, we think, is an increasing number of kids being hospitalized," Spinner said.

 

[Desert Hound]

Your faith in the constitution protecting you is amusing.

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.

 

[dad4]

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.

 

[whatithink]

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 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.

 

[Ellejustus]

I get the point, however my point is that the "protection" offered by the constitution is paper thin (sic)

Maybe, but I see a lot of blood on that paper (sic)

 

[Ellejustus]

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.

 

[dad4]

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.

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.”

 

[Ellejustus]

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.”

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.

 

[Ellejustus]

WARNING WARNING WARNING!!!

Golden Gate is here. I'm leaving......

 

[what-happened]

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.

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.

 

[Grace T.]

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.

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.

 

[dad4]

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.

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.

 

[Grace T.]

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.

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.

 

[MicPaPa]

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.”

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.

 

[Desert Hound]

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

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.

 

[dad4]

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.

I was mocking you. "Do vaccines work" is not a yes/no question, nor does it have a one dimensional answer.

 

[Grace T.]

I was mocking you. "Do vaccines work" is not a yes/no question, nor does it have a one dimensional answer.

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".