Vaccine

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.
 
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...
Last time I checked, you don’t inject a seatbelt into your body, nor are there potential adverse reactions to simply wearing one. Your comparison lacks equivalencies.

How many vaccines still allow the “host” to catch and communicate the disease it is intended to immunize the host from?
 
Kicker 2.0 said:
How many vaccines still allow the “host” to catch and communicate the disease it is intended to immunize the host from?
Click to expand...
Well we know a number of them drop off dramatically within 10 weeks of a booster as it relates to omicron.

We know that vaxxed or not, omicron spreads very easily.

The reality is the current vaccines were designed for the earlier variants. Which makes it not surprising they do not do very well vs the latest variant.

Either way as we move into yr 3 of this, people are moving on. Now 3 yrs in, people like dad still don't realize they are fighting a losing battle.

We were never going to stop a virus like this that circulates so easily.
 
Grace T. said:
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.
Click to expand...
More logic? Here you go:

Sentences one and two are just insults. Your false dichotomy fallacy is in sentence three. Everything else is word spam, and can be ignored because it builds off your initial false claim.
 
Desert Hound said:
I don't think people realize how frequently they have many members on board with their decisions to create large majority opinions.
Click to expand...
Its pretty amazing when you think about it, try getting a group of 9 people from diverse backgrounds to agree on anything. Of course it doesnt fit the political narrative, so the partisans ignore the fact that SCOTUS generally agrees on matters. The other issue that is often ignored is these cases have their own unique fact patterns, but partisans attempt to boil it down to pro this or anti that.
 
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...
We never had the option. The complexity of the virus put the writing on the wall very early. It's unfortunate that transparency isn't a trait the government exhibits.

We met outdoors, we've deployed a leaky vaccine, we've worn masks and we've kept our distance. We did some of these pretty good for two weeks or so. Some parts of the country have done the mask and social distance thing better than others. The vaccine was sold as the end of the pandemic - just ask maddow.

Society doesn't allow us to do all of these in any type of permanent state, it's not the way humans and our economy operate. The best thing that has happened so far is the omicron mutation. Keep fingers crossed that data coming out of Florida continues to trend in the right direction, verifying that SA health officials are right. Now, if only we can crank up production of the only MABs that works on omicron and get it on the street as quickly as possible. The urgency for testing kits is rather late and effort may wasted on something that shoulnd't be such a high priority. Just ask health care providers in Vermont what happens when everyone and their mother in small rural areas test postive for omicron.
 
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.
Click to expand...

I think you confused ‘recommended policy’ with ‘plan’.

Covid-0 was never a viable ‘plan’ and those ‘recommended policies’ should have been ‘protect the vulnerable’.

Once you get to herd immunity, the deaths of the vulnerable are baked in. When are you going to realize that?
 
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...

WTF! ‘We’ could have chosen? What we? Is this a personal pronoun that I’m misusing? The ‘we’ in the rest of the world or just your neighborhood, ‘Ken’?

Last I checked, this pandemic is global. There is not enough vaccine for the world… let alone boosters in 10wk intervals… and the ‘rest of the world’ needs to work ‘at work’ or much worse outcomes await.

Bah, humbug.. what you’re writing is a Passion Play!
 
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...
Vindicated by Fauci no less. Good job if you didn't jab, especially your kids. On the other hand, must suck having to wait and wonder if you damaged your kids.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1475868168891600898
 
The Gateway Pundit has a large posting of videos from various nurses from around the world
below:

SHOCKING: Compilation of Nurse Whistleblowers from Around the World Warning About COVID Vaccines (thegatewaypundit.com)


The majority of individuals who have received any of these Filthy vaccines have either
submitted due to pier pressure/financial pressure or a combination of both due to Government
mandates or massive disinformation.

This whole pandemic is a manufactured crisis to instill control over the populace and eliminate
a large swath of the planets inhabitants.

If you think I'm full of shit just wait until this coming summer of 2022, this is going to go full
critical mass in a six month period.
There is no way in hell anyone can explain away the deaths that we are now witnessing....
Absolutely no way !!!

PURE EVIL !
 
N00B said:
I think you confused ‘recommended policy’ with ‘plan’.

Covid-0 was never a viable ‘plan’ and those ‘recommended policies’ should have been ‘protect the vulnerable’.

Once you get to herd immunity, the deaths of the vulnerable are baked in. When are you going to realize that?
Click to expand...
I look at you guys as the public health equivalent of the Seattle rioters.

You both demonstrated that, if you work at it really hard, you can get rid of the laws meant to protect you.

You also both have self serving explanations for why the inevitable deaths aren't really your fault.
 
dad4 said:
More logic? Here you go:

Sentences one and two are just insults. Your false dichotomy fallacy is in sentence three. Everything else is word spam, and can be ignored because it builds off your initial false claim.
Click to expand...

Orwellian translator:

"Sentences and two are just insults"= I'm allowed to be nasty. You aren't. I'm allowed to be condescending. You aren't.
"Your false dichotomy fallacy is in sentence three"= I'm rejecting the premise of everything you say because I don't want to discuss policy. I just want to preach and berate people, which is what I enjoy doing.
"Everything else is word spam"= I don't want to hear it.
"and can be ignored"= sticking my fingers in my ears....falalalalala....not hearing it
"because it builds off your initial false claim"= If I wave my hand, I can make it go away and not have to address the merits and I can decline again to state my policy proposal and just harangue everyone for their failures which I can blame the current situation on.
[built in subtext]=I'm just so smart. I'm so virtuous. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top