Vaccine

[GoldenGate]

In the first I did no such thing...I'm passing on info and pointed out if Trump was doing what the Biden white house is accused of doing, people would (rightly) be going ape shit.

In the second, I defined the group and even passed on examples.

Guess you don't understand. I do admire the gaslighting ability, though. At least we know you can do something well, Magoo.

How about your prior lie that Newsom is responsible for counties being able to issue their own emergency mandates, which you then tried to cover by claiming making some nonsense statement that the statute was limited to killing livestock? Or claiming that although you think states should be able to make their own decisions, Los Angeles County should not because it is a very different situation, despite the fact that Los Angeles County is at least as large geographically as three states and more populous than all but 7 states?

 

[Grace T.]

How about your prior lie that Newsom is responsible for counties being able to issue their own emergency mandates, which you then tried to cover by claiming making some nonsense statement that the statute was limited to killing livestock? Or claiming that although you think states should be able to make their own decisions, Los Angeles County should not because it is a very different situation, despite the fact that Los Angeles County is at least as large geographically as three states and more populous than all but 7 states?

Hey EOTL. How yah been? Long time, huh? Whatcha been up to? Still playing amateur counsel?

1. Wow way to distort my position. Dad4: see this is a deliberate mischaracterization of position in an attempt to lie....when you post the study itself and invite people to read it themselves, I'm not attempting to distort anything. EOTL: The legal issue is not just livestock...it's whether the counties have authority to undertake actions which exceed the enumerated powers set out in the statute, considering no one contemplated such powers at the time the statutes were drafted. It is entirely possible that a court would agree with you and say and statute was not intended to be limiting. It is also entirely possible that the courts could say certain actions undertaken (the relevant one was the shuttering of churches and virtually all economic commerce which was the issue at the time) exceeded the powers granted by the statutes. The emergency decree was a belt and suspenders approach to give the counties more leverage. Newsom facing a political recall made a tactical decision to leave that in place to allow the counties maximum flexibility to do what they thought they needed to do while at the same time not taking any actions himself (such as a state wide indoor mask mandate) that might make him accountable during the recall.

2. My position that the states should have maximum flexibility is because of the US constitution and the states are sovereign entities. As you know, the Constitution doesn't care if California is several multiples the size of Rhode Island. My position that states should be allowed to control their own pandemic responses is based on my belief of a limited interstate commerce clause and that nowhere in the Constitution does it give the federal government power over public health, therefore reserving such right to the states. The counties, of course, have no such sovereign claim, and therefore are subordinate to the state and have such powers only as the state governments delegate under their respective constitutions.

3. Liberals loved the distinction of sovereign powers while Trump was president. Otherwise, Trump would have ordered Newsom and Cuomo and the other blue state governors to open up. Now Republicans love the distinction because DeSantis can give Biden the finger. Having recently returned from the Dakotas, it sets up a hilarious and nonsensical situation that you need to wear a mask to enter a national park there, but pretty much no one else is wearing a mask.

4. At first you had me going (even the reference to Golden Gate) that you are an actual legal scholar but your failure to understand the distinction in 2, the vocab you use and the quasi legal understanding and failure to understand legal nuances (few lawyers take absolutist legal positions....it's beaten out of us in law school) points to you being my old friend EOTL. Missed yah (not).

 

[dad4]

How are you estimating it?

Well, it’s now official state policy in Texas. Abbott sent out a letter asking hospitals to delay all elective surgeries to help free up resources for covid patients. It’s the second time he’s done it. The previous time was a complete ban. To me, that makes it a rule, not an exception.

In Abbott’s words:

“voluntarily postpone medical procedures for which delay will not result in loss of life or a deterioration in the patient’s condition."

Gov. Greg Abbott asks Texas hospitals to delay nonessential procedures as COVID-19 patients strain capacity

Abbott's request was one of several steps to address rising coronavirus case numbers and hospitalizations. He did not back down from his refusal to allow local mask mandates.

www.texastribune.org

Similar headlines in other hard hit states.

 

[dad4]

Hey EOTL. How yah been? Long time, huh? Whatcha been up to? Still playing amateur counsel?

1. Wow way to distort my position. Dad4: see this is a deliberate mischaracterization of position in an attempt to lie....when you post the study itself and invite people to read it themselves, I'm not attempting to distort anything. EOTL: The legal issue is not just livestock...it's whether the counties have authority to undertake actions which exceed the enumerated powers set out in the statute, considering no one contemplated such powers at the time the statutes were drafted. It is entirely possible that a court would agree with you and say and statute was not intended to be limiting. It is also entirely possible that the courts could say certain actions undertaken (the relevant one was the shuttering of churches and virtually all economic commerce which was the issue at the time) exceeded the powers granted by the statutes. The emergency decree was a belt and suspenders approach to give the counties more leverage. Newsom facing a political recall made a tactical decision to leave that in place to allow the counties maximum flexibility to do what they thought they needed to do while at the same time not taking any actions himself (such as a state wide indoor mask mandate) that might make him accountable during the recall.

2. My position that the states should have maximum flexibility is because of the US constitution and the states are sovereign entities. As you know, the Constitution doesn't care if California is several multiples the size of Rhode Island. My position that states should be allowed to control their own pandemic responses is based on my belief of a limited interstate commerce clause and that nowhere in the Constitution does it give the federal government power over public health, therefore reserving such right to the states. The counties, of course, have no such sovereign claim, and therefore are subordinate to the state and have such powers only as the state governments delegate under their respective constitutions.

3. Liberals loved the distinction of sovereign powers while Trump was president. Otherwise, Trump would have ordered Newsom and Cuomo and the other blue state governors to open up. Now Republicans love the distinction because DeSantis can give Biden the finger. Having recently returned from the Dakotas, it sets up a hilarious and nonsensical situation that you need to wear a mask to enter a national park there, but pretty much no one else is wearing a mask.

4. At first you had me going (even the reference to Golden Gate) that you are an actual legal scholar but your failure to understand the distinction in 2, the vocab you use and the quasi legal understanding and failure to understand legal nuances (few lawyers take absolutist legal positions....it's beaten out of us in law school) points to you being my old friend EOTL. Missed yah (not).

Study: do not interpret this to mean the reduction from masks is only 10%.

Grace: the study shows that the reduction from masks is only 10%.

What did I miss? It certainly reads like a deliberate misrepresentation. The authors even took time to make it clear that your reading was not supported by their data.

 

[Desert Hound]

So what you're saying is that you quoted a fake manifesto from a fake doctor that you found at a conspiracy theory website that you are too embarrassed to identify.

This is what anti-vaxxers are. They are suckers who are easily duped by fake experts making fake expert opinions based on fake science telling them things they want to here. Literally all the anti-vaxxer bs can be summed up with desert hound's reliance on a fraudulent "expert" from a fringe/alt/whackadoo website that he's too chicken to even identify because it will expose him and all his bs for what it is.

Lets try again.

It is a fact that they do not have long term data on any possible side effects of the covid vax.

You seem to struggle with that concept. Do you agree that there is no long term data?

Do you think we should mandate people to take a vaccine if we do not know if there are any long term issues.

That is a reasonable position. You seem to think that is conspiracy or anti vax. Why?

See if you can string together a coherent response to the above points.

 

[Grace T.]

Study: do not interpret this to mean the reduction from masks is only 10%.

Grace: the study shows that the reduction from masks is only 10%.

What did I miss? It certainly reads like a deliberate misrepresentation. The authors even took time to make it clear that your reading was not supported by their data.

Again, you always assume the worst about your opponents, particularly those that attack your cherished beliefs. Seriously, why would I do that and post the study? Do I think you aren't going to read it? The study showed a roughly 10% reduction from surgical masks. Sorry I didn't qualify it given the circumstances, given the sample size, given the % of the population wearing the mask. I'm doing multiple things and only have a limited amount of time to play with you all. I also shorthanded that the study had room for a potential upside for further protectiveness if wider use was adopted. I could also note that the study showed a bigger effect in the older people and the distancing and this effect in the older (who may have been more readily willing to uptake masks AND distance) could potentially largely be responsible for the entire effect.

Now wanna talk about the things you are ignoring such as the cloth masks or the texas study? Of course not....you are down to casting aspersions on others motivations to protect your illusions. As I said, you are rapidly sitting alone on cloth mask island as most of Europe and a large portion of the scientific community is moving on from that and you are still prepared to die on that hill.

 

[espola]

In the first I did no such thing...I'm passing on info and pointed out if Trump was doing what the Biden white house is accused of doing, people would (rightly) be going ape shit.

In the second, I defined the group and even passed on examples.

Guess you don't understand. I do admire the gaslighting ability, though. At least we know you can do something well, Magoo.

It's so bad that you don't even know you are doing it (see ape shit comment above).

 

[Grace T.]

It's so bad that you don't even know you are doing it (see ape shit comment above).

<sigh> lights are on, but it's still dim.

The bigger question is whether you are actually good at and knowing you are gaslighting or if you are just aping what others are doing.

 

[Grace T.]

Nate Silver, who is not a righty by any stretch of the imagination, is positively getting skewered today on SM. Like I said, I think we are at an end with each others patience with each other and have stopped listening. Nate Silver has in no way been a hard core anti-lockdowner/anti-masker/anti-vaxxer yet is still being raked over the coals for questioning a lot of the preferred policies coming out of team panic.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1435220339630485506

 

[Grace T.]

This is where we are at politically....violence and gorilla masks.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1435719994566905859

 

[what-happened]

<sigh> lights are on, but it's still dim.

The bigger question is whether you are actually good at and knowing you are gaslighting or if you are just aping what others are doing.

He's too busy watching videos of his favorite boogey man, blindfolded with a banana in his mouth. Apparently he's a big fan of the folks who put the video together.

 

[Desert Hound]

Sometimes all it takes is a spark to start the resistance to gov overreach.

 

[Kicker4Life]

Well, it’s now official state policy in Texas. Abbott sent out a letter asking hospitals to delay all elective surgeries to help free up resources for covid patients. It’s the second time he’s done it. The previous time was a complete ban. To me, that makes it a rule, not an exception.

In Abbott’s words:

“voluntarily postpone medical procedures for which delay will not result in loss of life or a deterioration in the patient’s condition."

Gov. Greg Abbott asks Texas hospitals to delay nonessential procedures as COVID-19 patients strain capacity

Abbott's request was one of several steps to address rising coronavirus case numbers and hospitalizations. He did not back down from his refusal to allow local mask mandates.

www.texastribune.org

Similar headlines in other hard hit states.

So “Elective” surgeries. The original question was how my vaccination status affects your health. Your retort is that Unvaxx’d people are over crowding ICU’s which is delaying surgeries. But upon further clarity, you mean elective surgeries which are not really considered “health emergencies”.

Got it….we’ll put this one to bed now.

 

[dad4]

So “Elective” surgeries. The original question was how my vaccination status affects your health. Your retort is that Unvaxx’d people are over crowding ICU’s which is delaying surgeries. But upon further clarity, you mean elective surgeries which are not really considered “health emergencies”.

Got it….we’ll put this one to bed now.

Read the article for the definition of "elective."

They don't mean just face lifts. It means it can be scheduled. Pretty much any non emergency procedure.

 

[Bruddah IZ]

Study: do not interpret this to mean the reduction from masks is only 10%.

Grace: the study shows that the reduction from masks is only 10%.

What did I miss? It certainly reads like a deliberate misrepresentation. The authors even took time to make it clear that your reading was not supported by their data.

Reminds me of your mask mea culpa.

 

[Bruddah IZ]

Read the article for the definition of "elective."

They don't mean just face lifts. It means it can be scheduled. Pretty much any non emergency procedure.

Hurricane Dervish!

 

[whatithink]

Lets try again.

It is a fact that they do not have long term data on any possible side effects of the covid vax.

You seem to struggle with that concept. Do you agree that there is no long term data?

Do you think we should mandate people to take a vaccine if we do not know if there are any long term issues.

That is a reasonable position. You seem to think that is conspiracy or anti vax. Why?

See if you can string together a coherent response to the above points.

There's an enormous amount of "long term data", as I've pointed out to you. Side effects for vaccines manifest in 6-8 weeks. That's accepted medical fact. There's a plethora of material on it. Large scale vaccinations started in January.

 

[Grace T.]

There's an enormous amount of "long term data", as I've pointed out to you. Side effects for vaccines manifest in 6-8 weeks. That's accepted medical fact. There's a plethora of material on it. Large scale vaccinations started in January.

Generally true. The rebuttal is that the mrna vaccine is new. It should be 100% safe. But there's no way to 100% really know that yet, given that experts have overlooked things in the past before and only 8 months have passed. Again....overwhelming odds are that it's perfectly fine...but you don't know what you don't know.

What's the hilarious part in all this is that the hard core members of team panic have completely ignored that the virus has limited risk to a large portion of the population, particularly children, and has been very bad in truly assessing risk, particularly among the vaccinated. The hard core antivaxxers are really bad at assessing the risk of vaccines, particularly among those individuals that are 30 or older and haven't had the virus. It's the same fallacy in reverse and the extremes are basically throwing the same poop at each other.

 

[whatithink]

Generally true. The rebuttal is that the mrna vaccine is new. It should be 100% safe. But there's no way to 100% really know that yet, given that experts have overlooked things in the past before and only 8 months have passed. Again....overwhelming odds are that it's perfectly fine...but you don't know what you don't know.

What's the hilarious part in all this is that the hard core members of team panic have completely ignored that the virus has limited risk to a large portion of the population, particularly children, and has been very bad in truly assessing risk, particularly among the vaccinated. The hard core antivaxxers are really bad at assessing the risk of vaccines, particularly among those individuals that are 30 or older and haven't had the virus. It's the same fallacy in reverse and the extremes are basically throwing the same poop at each other.

Scientists have been studying mRNA for decades. They have produced vaccines and tested in humans for over a decade. So, yes, its true that this is the first approved mRNA vaccine, but its not something someone picked up 18 months ago. This is the culmination of 20 or more years of R&D.

And, yes, we never know if something is 100% safe. People takes drugs every day that are 100% not safe, that come with a litany of warnings, but people will take them under Drs advice ... but not get vaccinated based on the same persons advice - you couldn't make it up!

 

[Bruddah IZ]

Trust, but verify. We're a multiple doctor opinion family. We've had too many issues with doctors to trust a single one outright. My daughter was almost killed at birth due to a procedure we were against that our doctor assured us was safe. Doctors are not without bias or misguided opinions (or often just unmitigated arrogance). They're human just like the rest of us. We consulted with our doctor and all our kids our vaccinated, in fact, all but my son got our vaxs early . My daughter has had a troubling side effect from the vaccinations for nearly six months and shows no sign of disappearing.

Its healthy to question reported science. I'm pro-science but we have to remember that its humans that are conducting the science.

And malpractice premiums are based on risk.