Vaccine

watfly said:
We are below 100, so no. I don't see anyway that happens legally or logistically. You have to be complete unmitigated idiot to even propose such a rule particularly when businesses are struggling to find employees. It defies logic.
Click to expand...

Legally, they have a twin problem:

-Does OSHA have that statutory authority to enact such a rule, and does Biden have the authority via executive order to have OSHA do so. It's complicated (and not as easy as the R governor make it seem) but Chevron has been on its last legs for a while.
-Does this exceed the scope of the powers of the federal government under the Constitution and does that power displace that of the states (some of whom have banned such mandates).

It's this last question which is the more troubling of the two. It sets up a state sovereignty clash which the red states are not likely to let go of. It's the whole ball of wax when it comes to their view of limited v. unlimited government.
 
Grace T. said:
Legally, they have a twin problem:

-Does OSHA have that statutory authority to enact such a rule, and does Biden have the authority via executive order to have OSHA do so. It's complicated (and not as easy as the R governor make it seem) but Chevron has been on its last legs for a while.
-Does this exceed the scope of the powers of the federal government under the Constitution and does that power displace that of the states (some of whom have banned such mandates).

It's this last question which is the more troubling of the two. It sets up a state sovereignty clash which the red states are not likely to let go of. It's the whole ball of wax when it comes to their view of limited v. unlimited government.
Click to expand...

The legal seagull is back at it.
 
GoldenGate said:
The legal seagull is back at it.
Click to expand...
How many Avatars EOTL? Be honest for once with us and come clean. Weave been a family for over three years now. You can;t always get what YOU want dude. Learn to compromise a little and share with others. Also, stop cheating and then lie about it. When you get caught, come clean so you can heal.
 
GoldenGate said:
Easy. When 50 studies establish that Covid-19 vaccines do not negatively impact fertility, that is credible. When desert hound cuts and pastes an anti-vax manifesto by an anonymous "pathologist/veteran/graduate of good undisclosed medical school who went to had a prestigious unidentified residency" form a fringe conspiracy website that even he is too embarrassed to identify, that is not credible. When you deny 50 studies because "you never know" and "only time will tell", and "we don't have crystal balls", that is not credible. When you are on the same side as crush on any issue, you are not credible. If you are on the same side as someone who believes that local elected officials adopting local ordinances is a "dictatorship", you also are not credible. And you are not credible if you are on the same side as someone who believes "strict construction" of a constitutional provision stating that a county may make and enforce "all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances ... not in conflict with general laws", should be interpreted to add "except mask mandates".
Click to expand...
I realize you can't think outside of partisan lines, but I actually disagree with the Abbotts and DeSantis no mask mandates and it should be the choice of the county. The rest of your response is just partisan drivel and an appeal authority without understanding the basis for those studies. If it wasn't an issue NIH wouldn't be studying it. Ultimately, it may be determined that the vaccine didn't impact fertility for some people. But to claim we know it doesn't have a long term impact is pure speculation.
 
GoldenGate said:
Easy. When 50 studies establish that Covid-19 vaccines do not negatively impact fertility, that is credible. When desert hound cuts and pastes an anti-vax manifesto by an anonymous "pathologist/veteran/graduate of good undisclosed medical school who went to had a prestigious unidentified residency" form a fringe conspiracy website that even he is too embarrassed to identify, that is not credible. When you deny 50 studies because "you never know" and "only time will tell", and "we don't have crystal balls", that is not credible. When you are on the same side as crush on any issue, you are not credible. If you are on the same side as someone who believes that local elected officials adopting local ordinances is a "dictatorship", you also are not credible. And you are not credible if you are on the same side as someone who believes "strict construction" of a constitutional provision stating that a county may make and enforce "all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances ... not in conflict with general laws", should be interpreted to add "except mask mandates".
Click to expand...
I guess the NIH is now in the misinformation business. Makes sense I suppose.
 
Grace T. said:
Legally, they have a twin problem:

-Does OSHA have that statutory authority to enact such a rule, and does Biden have the authority via executive order to have OSHA do so. It's complicated (and not as easy as the R governor make it seem) but Chevron has been on its last legs for a while.
-Does this exceed the scope of the powers of the federal government under the Constitution and does that power displace that of the states (some of whom have banned such mandates).

It's this last question which is the more troubling of the two. It sets up a state sovereignty clash which the red states are not likely to let go of. It's the whole ball of wax when it comes to their view of limited v. unlimited government.
Click to expand...
The limited/unlimited piece is disingenuous at best, imv. It depends on who is in charge as to who complains. The Red governors were fine with T issuing executive orders & actions, just as the Blue governors are fine with B doing the same - in a general sense. Neither the Ds or Rs believe in limiting government when they are in charge, but suddenly do when they are not. Basically, its only overreach if you don't agree; but apparently makes complete sense if you do.

Apparently there's people who still fall for this crap!
 
watfly said:
So we have gone from cherry picking studies to cherry picking the conclusions from the same study.

Maybe you're right in this case, but how then do we sort through what's misinformation or not? The misinformation is coming from all sides and directions.
Click to expand...
In this case, the study itself is good. Read that.

People drawing conclusions and citing the study? Often weak.

Be especially cautious if they claim "such and such a study proved that A is not true". 90% of the time this means that someone tried to prove A, but failed.
 
My Fortune 100 company I work for just sent out an email that they are closely looking a federal employee guidelines.

What are the benefits of me getting the vaccine after I have had covid March 2020?

Some are looking into religious exemptions.
 
dad4 said:
Wouldn’t matter. We have great long term vax studies on all sorts of vaccines. It doesn’t stop the anti-vax folks from convincing each other that they need to spread measles around Disneyland.

The anti-vax loons have been around for decades. They just finally found people gullible enough to believe them this time.
Click to expand...
Your motivation for such drivel must be either:

You rolled the dice and vaxxed your kids and are having second thoughts, hence all the over the top everyone must vax nonsense... the old, misery loves company syndrome.

...or

You stand to profit from vaccines.
 
Dominic said:
My Fortune 100 company I work for just sent out an email that they are closely looking a federal employee guidelines.

What are the benefits of me getting the vaccine after I have had covid March 2020?

Some are looking into religious exemptions.
Click to expand...

a. They don't know because they really haven't tested the issue. It may be that all you need is natural immunity and there is no benefit (particularly if you had a bad case), it may be the vaccine acts as a booster giving you longer lasting immunity, or it may be natural immunity fades quickly and if you had it early on you need to keep up our immunity. The experts are basically guessing.
b. It could also have some negative effects since these scenarios have not been fully studied either. Anecdotally, people who have had it before are having much more severe reactions to the first shot than the rest of the population (as opposed to the second shot)
c. The federal guidelines are going to be challenged in court. Lawsuits have basically been geared up by numerous red state governors and private organizations. The Constitutional clash we are headed for is that some states have expressly banned such mandates and the mandate bans will now clash directly with federal law.
d. There have been some lawsuits filed that argue natural immunity should be considered a medical exemption. As far as I'm aware none have been litigated to judgment but a few have been settled with public employers. Private employers have much more leeway.
 
whatithink said:
The limited/unlimited piece is disingenuous at best, imv. It depends on who is in charge as to who complains. The Red governors were fine with T issuing executive orders & actions, just as the Blue governors are fine with B doing the same - in a general sense. Neither the Ds or Rs believe in limiting government when they are in charge, but suddenly do when they are not. Basically, its only overreach if you don't agree; but apparently makes complete sense if you do.

Apparently there's people who still fall for this crap!
Click to expand...
Well Trump would have liked to have ordered California and NY to open up but he didn't.
 
watfly said:
I realize you can't think outside of partisan lines, but I actually disagree with the Abbotts and DeSantis no mask mandates and it should be the choice of the county. The rest of your response is just partisan drivel and an appeal authority without understanding the basis for those studies. If it wasn't an issue NIH wouldn't be studying it. Ultimately, it may be determined that the vaccine didn't impact fertility for some people. But to claim we know it doesn't have a long term impact is pure speculation.
Click to expand...

Partisan? You clearly don't understand the difference between fact and opinion. One study after the next has found no link between the vaccine and fertility. Partisan opinion, however, is you calling the foremost experts in the world "lab jockeys' and ignoring what they have already found on the basis that the NIH has funded a study that isn't even looking at the vaccine's effect on fertility. Rather, it is providing a grant to fund studies on the impact of taking the vaccine on the menstrual cycle, and which it specifically says are not looking at fertility. So, when you claim that "if it wasn't an issue NIH wouldn't be studying it", you're absolutely right. It is not an issue and they aren't studying it. That is probably the case because the NIH has already funded studies that did this and guess what moron? For example, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33608302/ and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34058573/. The NIH also funded a study that addressed the impact of dumbfuck anti-vaxxers like you promoting vaccine hesitancy on this very basis. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34181273/. And another about how anti-vaxxers are spreading your exact kind of bullshit on social media to scare women. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34181273/. You are such a dumbshit.

How many studies finding no link between the vaccine and fertility before you finally agree? 5? 10? 100? Or are you like most anti-vaxxers, and the answer is one more than ever comes out because there will never be enough studies refuting your partisan, unsupported belief?
 
GoldenGate said:
Partisan? You clearly don't understand the difference between fact and opinion. One study after the next has found no link between the vaccine and fertility. Partisan opinion, however, is you calling the foremost experts in the world "lab jockeys' and ignoring what they have already found on the basis that the NIH has funded a study that isn't even looking at the vaccine's effect on fertility. Rather, it is providing a grant to fund studies on the impact of taking the vaccine on the menstrual cycle, and which it specifically says are not looking at fertility. So, when you claim that "if it wasn't an issue NIH wouldn't be studying it", you're absolutely right. It is not an issue and they aren't studying it. That is probably the case because the NIH has already funded studies that did this and guess what moron? For example, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33608302/ and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34058573/. The NIH also funded a study that addressed the impact of dumbfuck anti-vaxxers like you promoting vaccine hesitancy on this very basis. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34181273/. And another about how anti-vaxxers are spreading your exact kind of bullshit on social media to scare women. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34181273/. You are such a dumbshit.

How many studies finding no link between the vaccine and fertility before you finally agree? 5? 10? 100? Or are you like most anti-vaxxers, and the answer is one more than ever comes out because there will never be enough studies refuting your partisan, unsupported belief?
Click to expand...

I tend toward a Hemingwayan writing style, in which some points don't have to be spelled out if they are obvious to the reader after a little reflection. In that sense, it was not necessary to use the words "moron", 'dumbfuck", and "dumbshit" there.
 
GoldenGate said:
Partisan? You clearly don't understand the difference between fact and opinion. One study after the next has found no link between the vaccine and fertility. Partisan opinion, however, is you calling the foremost experts in the world "lab jockeys' and ignoring what they have already found on the basis that the NIH has funded a study that isn't even looking at the vaccine's effect on fertility. Rather, it is providing a grant to fund studies on the impact of taking the vaccine on the menstrual cycle, and which it specifically says are not looking at fertility. So, when you claim that "if it wasn't an issue NIH wouldn't be studying it", you're absolutely right. It is not an issue and they aren't studying it. That is probably the case because the NIH has already funded studies that did this and guess what moron? For example, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33608302/ and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34058573/. The NIH also funded a study that addressed the impact of dumbfuck anti-vaxxers like you promoting vaccine hesitancy on this very basis. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34181273/. And another about how anti-vaxxers are spreading your exact kind of bullshit on social media to scare women. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34181273/. You are such a dumbshit.

How many studies finding no link between the vaccine and fertility before you finally agree? 5? 10? 100? Or are you like most anti-vaxxers, and the answer is one more than ever comes out because there will never be enough studies refuting your partisan, unsupported belief?
Click to expand...
How long did it take for It to come out that Talcum powder caused Ovarian Cancer?

We only have Scientific Theories on the long term affects of this “vaccine”. The probability is good (maybe even great) that there won’t be any serious long term affects, but to speak down at those who are have legitimate skepticism is quite self righteous.
 
Last edited:
GoldenGate said:
Partisan? You clearly don't understand the difference between fact and opinion. One study after the next has found no link between the vaccine and fertility. Partisan opinion, however, is you calling the foremost experts in the world "lab jockeys' and ignoring what they have already found on the basis that the NIH has funded a study that isn't even looking at the vaccine's effect on fertility. Rather, it is providing a grant to fund studies on the impact of taking the vaccine on the menstrual cycle, and which it specifically says are not looking at fertility. So, when you claim that "if it wasn't an issue NIH wouldn't be studying it", you're absolutely right. It is not an issue and they aren't studying it. That is probably the case because the NIH has already funded studies that did this and guess what moron? For example, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33608302/ and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34058573/. The NIH also funded a study that addressed the impact of dumbfuck anti-vaxxers like you promoting vaccine hesitancy on this very basis. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34181273/. And another about how anti-vaxxers are spreading your exact kind of bullshit on social media to scare women. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34181273/. You are such a dumbshit.

How many studies finding no link between the vaccine and fertility before you finally agree? 5? 10? 100? Or are you like most anti-vaxxers, and the answer is one more than ever comes out because there will never be enough studies refuting your partisan, unsupported belief?
Click to expand...
Just one long term study, sheep.
 
dad4 said:
Same study. And same failure to understand confidence intervals.

Let me know if you see a take from someone who can distinguish between “not proven” and “proven false.”
Click to expand...
You mean because you're comparing this current pandemic to itself?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top