Vaccine

I haven't read the article but expect he is referring to property taxes (local & state) which are based on a notional value that can go up annually. So you are being taxed on the "unrealized gains" of the property.
Maybe so, but that's on the state/county level. Federally its unconstitutional to have a direct tax that is not apportioned among the states ratably. Hence why there is not a federal property tax and why a wealth tax is unconstitutional.
 
Your data from Fauci is so wrong, and he knows it. The CDC numbers even prove it. Flu deaths are always undercounted. In a mild 2017-18 Flu season 643 deaths between the ages of 0-17 occurred. Mild season. Compare that to the covid 19 over the last 20 months. You can keep searching for numbers on flu seasons. They are very high during some years.

And please don't misinterpret my position. I'm not against vaccines for the population of children that are at risk. That's a no brainer. Vaccinating a healthy, low risk population, under the guise of protecting an older population is silly. If you are older, at risk, get your shots and boosters. Makes sense. You may still get the virus, but your illness will be less severe. Then you'll have the lusted for hybrid immunity, which is the bomb.
Excellent break down. My dd is in the top 1% for her age health wise. No underlying health issues. Her immune system is super strong. Strong because when she does get a cold or sniffles, she beats it like the champ she is every time. Maddie was one of 1100 kids whose parents gave up their children for the test. She is paralyzed. She was healthy one day and can;t walk the next. I love you guys but this is pure evil. People have lost their job and now kids can;t play sports and or play soccer in college. I guess if you really love soccer you will get the jab. So sad it's come down to this.
 
We don't have AYSO in our neck of the woods. I wish we did. There's a big gap between local rec leagues here and club soccer. I think AYSO most certainly could fill that. At least if my memory is correct, AYSO wasn't half bad in SoCal when I was growing up. It's definitely a point of conflict for me for sure, and hard to reason about at times. Pay to play is brutal -- and has been discussed ad nauseam on these forums.

If AYSO wasn't "half bad" club soccer wouldn't have imploded like it did. There were two big problems with AYSO: the knowledge gap for coaches (which as more people grew up that went through the program and new training materials came out, became less of an issue), that it wasn't year round (some kids just want to do soccer and some don't want to be forced to do soccer/basketball/baseball every year), and that it wasn't tiered. This last issue AYSO stubbornly refused to address, which is why the brutal pay to play system arose.
 
1. We know from other articles posted on this forum the 500 number is over stated. Of those kids some portion have died with COVID instead of from COVID.
2. You can't throw in and compare it to the last 18 months of flu because flu disappeared. You also can't compare flu deaths year over year to COVID since the beginning. Talk about fuzzy math. But, we know comparing COVID year to year, even with the inflated number, to flu year to year. flu deaths can range anywhere from 2x-5x COVID deaths, depending on how bad the flu season is.
3. From other articles posted on the forum, we also know long COVID is also a minimal concern in children, and long flu is much more of a danger.
4. You guys also seem to fails to understand the concept of marginal utility. Decreasing the risk of death [not actual numbers] from 8x to 3x in a person over 60 is a huge deal. Deceasing the chances of death in a child from .01% to .005% is just simply not as much of a big of a deal. Further, given the new dosing, we don't know exactly how much of a benefit against death/hospitalization/long COVID the vaccine is going to be...again the test numbers were very very limited (a good read is the 1 FDA member who wrote out his dissent to support his abstention vote).
5. On the cost end, we simply don't know what the risks are....again because the sample size is so small....particularly in boys.
6. So you guys are just guessing like everyone else. Far more honest to say "I'm scared of the virus" just like the other side is "scared of the vaccine". You may as well throw a dart at a dart board. It's why we are now in a booster conversation....because pharma and the FDA may have made a mistake and those initial mRNA shots should have been spaced out more....but they didn't know what they didn't know.

So, you're saying everyone is scared? Personally I'm not scared at all. We take guidance from our doctors, seeking second opinions when necessary. I'm not scared of my kids dying via covid or the vaccination. Sure there are some quack doctors out there (some of you have even posted links by or including them), but I do believe far more doctors actually know what they're talking about versus those that do not. Who would you trust? Someone who claims to be super smart and spends a significant amount of their waking life on a soccer forum (talking about covid) versus scientists/doctors who have spent many years in their field of study?
 
Maybe so, but that's on the state/county level. Federally its unconstitutional to have a direct tax that is not apportioned among the states ratably. Hence why there is not a federal property tax and why a wealth tax is unconstitutional.
Here are couple of articles that explain the constitutional issues with direct taxes and apportionment one from independent Reuters and one from Berkeley the bastion of conservative thought.



Taxing unrealized gains is a net worth tax
 
1. We know from other articles posted on this forum the 500 number is over stated. Of those kids some portion have died with COVID instead of from COVID.
2. You can't throw in and compare it to the last 18 months of flu because flu disappeared. You also can't compare flu deaths year over year to COVID since the beginning. Talk about fuzzy math. But, we know comparing COVID year to year, even with the inflated number, to flu year to year. flu deaths can range anywhere from 2x-5x COVID deaths, depending on how bad the flu season is.
3. From other articles posted on the forum, we also know long COVID is also a minimal concern in children, and long flu is much more of a danger.
4. You guys also seem to fails to understand the concept of marginal utility. Decreasing the risk of death [not actual numbers] from 8x to 3x in a person over 60 is a huge deal. Deceasing the chances of death in a child from .01% to .005% is just simply not as much of a big of a deal. Further, given the new dosing, we don't know exactly how much of a benefit against death/hospitalization/long COVID the vaccine is going to be...again the test numbers were very very limited (a good read is the 1 FDA member who wrote out his dissent to support his abstention vote).
5. On the cost end, we simply don't know what the risks are....again because the sample size is so small....particularly in boys.
6. So you guys are just guessing like everyone else. Far more honest to say "I'm scared of the virus" just like the other side is "scared of the vaccine". You may as well throw a dart at a dart board. It's why we are now in a booster conversation....because pharma and the FDA may have made a mistake and those initial mRNA shots should have been spaced out more....but they didn't know what they didn't know.
...another 2 casualties falling prey to The Gracey Theory in short order...to tie it back to a soccer forum...like watching U-Littles attempting to play in the World Cup.
 
So, you're saying everyone is scared? Personally I'm not scared at all. We take guidance from our doctors, seeking second opinions when necessary. I'm not scared of my kids dying via covid or the vaccination. Sure there are some quack doctors out there (some of you have even posted links by or including them), but I do believe far more doctors actually know what they're talking about versus those that do not. Who would you trust? Someone who claims to be super smart and spends a significant amount of their waking life on a soccer forum (talking about covid) versus scientists/doctors who have spent many years in their field of study?
I trust those that treat Covid on a front-line basis the most. I also rely on the actual data over the opinions of scientists, epidemiologists etc. I'm a show me, not tell me type of person. Trust, but verify.

I also trust what I've personally experienced over what others tell me I should experience. While that may be considered anecdotal, its human nature to trust those instincts.
 
So, you're saying everyone is scared? Personally I'm not scared at all. We take guidance from our doctors, seeking second opinions when necessary. I'm not scared of my kids dying via covid or the vaccination. Sure there are some quack doctors out there (some of you have even posted links by or including them), but I do believe far more doctors actually know what they're talking about versus those that do not. Who would you trust? Someone who claims to be super smart and spends a significant amount of their waking life on a soccer forum (talking about covid) versus scientists/doctors who have spent many years in their field of study?

I refer you to the prior article I posted regarding the experience of the mom and the so-called experts. I refer you to the prior post I posted with my drug resistant UTI that almost killed me and would have if I "trusted the experts". COVID would also probably have killed me if I had "trusted the experts" and not advocated.

Further, other countries have come out with different opinions about vaccinating the under 18 year olds, and there is a substantial minority (including the expert who absented and wrote a dissent on the FDA panel) so we know opinion isn't uniform.

Further, the experts at this point are really just guess (guessing with more info than the lay person, but nevertheless guessing) so you aren't trust a medical fact or even The Science TM but the guess of an expert. It's why it's possible (if you believe in boosters) that they got the spread among the 2 initial shots wrong.

But if you are going to trust a guess, I think you give good advice to trust a doctor that you trust. My only caution would be when dealing with so-called experts "trust but verify" is a pretty good maxim. Also remember some of the experts are tainted by the fact they are in bed with big pharma and there's a lot of money at stake here (which is likely why the expert FDA member instead of dissenting abstained).

I'm not advocating that you trust me. I'm advocating for people to think critically. In fact, I'm quite neutral over the issue of individual choice to vaccinating kids so long as we acknowledge (if you really aren't scared either way) that what you are doing is throwing a dart at the dart board since the data is so very weak. It's the same reason I oppose a vaccine mandate for kids, because if we are just throwing darts, its entirely logical to end up with the conclusion you shouldn't vaccinate your kid.
 
If AYSO wasn't "half bad" club soccer wouldn't have imploded like it did. There were two big problems with AYSO: the knowledge gap for coaches (which as more people grew up that went through the program and new training materials came out, became less of an issue), that it wasn't year round (some kids just want to do soccer and some don't want to be forced to do soccer/basketball/baseball every year), and that it wasn't tiered. This last issue AYSO stubbornly refused to address, which is why the brutal pay to play system arose.

My experience with AYSO goes back a loooong time ago. What you describe doesn't sound great, but local rec leagues up here are even worse.
 
I guess folks are doing Fuzzy Math in Arizona because almost 500 dead kids is substantial to me.
Not when you are talking out of a population of 70 million.


So, why do you have a problem with using a harm reduction strategy to save kids? Imagine if one of our kids was one of the 500 that prematurely died…all that shit that you are talking about really doesn’t matter then, right?
We still don't have long term studies on side affects of the drug on various age groups, various demographics, etc.

Every week we read something that they are just learning about the virus, the effectiveness of the various vaxxes, etc.

To mandate something to a group that has no risk without knowing if there are long term affects is not good policy.

Drugs takes years to come to the market. They study if certain groups have issues, etc. We have not done that in this case.

We do know that there is a very high risk group around the world. In that case it is those 65 and older. They have constituted the vast vast majority of all deaths. As such for them it makes sense to take a drug because their risk factor related to covid is very high. In other words the benefit of taking the vaxx far outweigh the risks.

Young people have no risk. We don't change the equation by vaccinating them because they are fine. The wise course for not at risk groups would be long term studies before any mandate goes in place on them.
 
...my bad, wrong choice of word... maybe it was selection or invitation, anyway not worth going back and looking it up...my actual point was clear and a solid one...and your point of quibbling over semantics is clear as well. Thanks.
Need a hug?
 
1. We know from other articles posted on this forum the 500 number is over stated. Of those kids some portion have died with COVID instead of from COVID.
2. You can't throw in and compare it to the last 18 months of flu because flu disappeared. You also can't compare flu deaths year over year to COVID since the beginning. Talk about fuzzy math. But, we know comparing COVID year to year, even with the inflated number, to flu year to year. flu deaths can range anywhere from 2x-5x COVID deaths, depending on how bad the flu season is.
3. From other articles posted on the forum, we also know long COVID is also a minimal concern in children, and long flu is much more of a danger.
4. You guys also seem to fails to understand the concept of marginal utility. Decreasing the risk of death [not actual numbers] from 8x to 3x in a person over 60 is a huge deal. Deceasing the chances of death in a child from .01% to .005% is just simply not as much of a big of a deal. Further, given the new dosing, we don't know exactly how much of a benefit against death/hospitalization/long COVID the vaccine is going to be...again the test numbers were very very limited (a good read is the 1 FDA member who wrote out his dissent to support his abstention vote).
5. On the cost end, we simply don't know what the risks are....again because the sample size is so small....particularly in boys.
6. So you guys are just guessing like everyone else. Far more honest to say "I'm scared of the virus" just like the other side is "scared of the vaccine". You may as well throw a dart at a dart board. It's why we are now in a booster conversation....because pharma and the FDA may have made a mistake and those initial mRNA shots should have been spaced out more....but they didn't know what they didn't know.

"articles posted on this forum" is not a reliable source.
 
So, you're saying everyone is scared? Personally I'm not scared at all. We take guidance from our doctors, seeking second opinions when necessary. I'm not scared of my kids dying via covid or the vaccination. Sure there are some quack doctors out there (some of you have even posted links by or including them), but I do believe far more doctors actually know what they're talking about versus those that do not. Who would you trust? Someone who claims to be super smart and spends a significant amount of their waking life on a soccer forum (talking about covid) versus scientists/doctors who have spent many years in their field of study?
...how many of those trusted and second opinion doctors provide you guidance on the long-term effects of the vaccine? Of course, this is not a fair question because the answer is unknowable...but we do know, with the exception of EUAs, rigorous long-term studies are essential and required, especially before approving for children.

...there are plenty of legitimate concerns and questions being raised by serious frontline doctors and experts that are going unanswered, and at worse being censored...this alone should be a concern for all laymen, especially parents.

...simple questions of concern that I will pose to you; why do you think the CDC in late September changed their age old definition of vaccine and vaccination, removing the term immunity? Additionally, why do you think the CDC is not recognizing natural immunity with Covid, when they have historically recognized it in most other viruses?

... I've asked doctors these questions and there was a concerning hesitation to give direct answers.
 
Maybe so, but that's on the state/county level. Federally its unconstitutional to have a direct tax that is not apportioned among the states ratably. Hence why there is not a federal property tax and why a wealth tax is unconstitutional.

Progressive income tax?
 
Not when you are talking out of a population of 70 million.



We still don't have long term studies on side affects of the drug on various age groups, various demographics, etc.

Every week we read something that they are just learning about the virus, the effectiveness of the various vaxxes, etc.

To mandate something to a group that has no risk without knowing if there are long term affects is not good policy.

Drugs takes years to come to the market. They study if certain groups have issues, etc. We have not done that in this case.

We do know that there is a very high risk group around the world. In that case it is those 65 and older. They have constituted the vast vast majority of all deaths. As such for them it makes sense to take a drug because their risk factor related to covid is very high. In other words the benefit of taking the vaxx far outweigh the risks.

Young people have no risk. We don't change the equation by vaccinating them because they are fine. The wise course for not at risk groups would be long term studies before any mandate goes in place on them.
Decent analysis but you are minimizing the death of approximately 500 kids. I could be wrong but I was under the impression that side effects from vaccines occur soon after administering the vaccine. The vaccine has been administered world wide and appears to be safe and effective. You scared homie?

So are you opposed to a harm reduction strategy because of all of the politically motivated speculation and conjecture going around?
 
Back
Top