What I Don’t Get About Vaccine
- Thread starter RONole
- Start date
I looked hard but couldn't find anything in there about full view of the witness' face with no mask.
Great.
COVID-19 and the Use of Masks by Testifying Witnesses in Criminal Trials – North Carolina Criminal Law
As jury trials resume across the state, many criminal courts will soon confront the issue of whether to permit State’s witnesses to wear masks while
nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu
Haven't read this yet. But just filed by a group of medical professionals.
I don’t disagree that you should be able to view a witness’ face but there is no established fundamental right to it.Great.
COVID-19 and the Use of Masks by Testifying Witnesses in Criminal Trials – North Carolina Criminal Law
As jury trials resume across the state, many criminal courts will soon confront the issue of whether to permit State’s witnesses to wear masks whilenccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu
It’s a right that should be guarded. Especially in a criminal trial. Absurd to permit a state witness to wear a mask while testifying. It’s not a policy question.
Everywhere is more restrictive than Sweden haha. Due to their policies early on they were in trouble due to the sheer number of people who were sick, and thus crowding hospitals and taking resources. Its an issue that would have been much worse here if we would have implemented similar policies. So just because their numbers are similar to some other places doesn't necessarily mean it was handled the right way. And that goes for most countries.
I read it. They make a good case, but rely heavily on the religious side of things for part of their argument. People can be protected under religious exemption, however there are very few people who can claim that.
I'm going to disagree with you on this. There is no scientific consensus on masks mitigating spread of Covid. There is also 50 years of studies pre-Covid that suggests masks don't mitigate spread of viruses. Most of the early studies the CDC trumpeted where observation/cohort studies which by definition can't demonstrate causality. There are several multiple regression analysis that found mask mandates are one of the least effective type of government action and not statistically significant. And this is even including surgical masks and/or N95 masks usage. We know cloth masks don't work at all. There are few actual RCT (Random Control Trials) done. These are the ones at the highest pecking order of scientific studies. At this level of scientific studies, the science is conflicting at best. I saw a month ago at highly powered Harvard/Columbia RCT study done in India demonstrated significant reduction. This study was still in pre-print, so not peer reviewed yet. However, it was done in poverty stricken area's of India where observers encourage mask wearing 100% of the time and issued surgical masks. That is even in their abodes........I use the word abode because these areas had many people living in close quarters in lean-to's, squished into thatch huts, etc. and not in the same living conditions we do here in this country. So, nothing like the situation here, where people live in single family homes, in low density situations and won't wear masks at home or outside.
In short, still no strong scientific evidence of mask efficacy in the USA or Europe.
Actually, they had the same issues we had here and the same reason. Their nursing homes and VNAs were not equipped with masks. So, there was a lot of infection being spread to the most vulnerable citizens. They also didn't use gloves for those vulnerable populations. That drove up their deaths and cases significantly in the early months, just as we did here with over 60% of the deaths from nursing homes early.
Don’t have time to fully address this or other posts right now but I’m not sure what it is you’re disagreeing with that you somehow attribute to me?
If you read my question to AllNoles that you quoted, you can see I never alleged any “consensus” about anything, and merely asked if there was some minimum number of less-assailable type studies that might sway his thinking or if that wouldn’t matter. If it wouldn’t matter, there’d be no need to sort through the many mask studies that have been done to see which ones are more or less worthy of consideration.
I’m well aware of the contentiousness of the mask science debate, and the challenges to designing and executing any such study that would be considered credible, especially to those who don’t appreciate its findings/implications.
ALWAYS follow the money. FSU shuts down in-class courses in 2020, and Spring 21, because of Covid. "Too dangerous," they said.
But perfectly fine for 15,000+ stranger$ to file into Doak throughout the fall of 2020, with wallets in tow, to keep the nearly-broke football program afloat. Ditto for basketball in Spring 21. All of that was inexplicably "safe."
Airlines begging for, and getting, changes in the "isolation periods" so they can staff their flight$. And now perfectly fine for the planes to be 100% chocked-full of passengers -- with ZERO "distancing" -- with the only requirement that the passengers wear t-shirt-like face coverings.
LOL.
Some of the briefs (from both sides) are real head scratchers. At the end of the day, I think the Court will grant a stay, send it back to be litigated in full, giving one side no active mandate, and OSHA the benefit of a lurking mandate for companies to justify their own vaccine requirements. Also, I think we all benefit from ongoing discovery--if it's made public.
Wow. WAY too simplistic and cynical IMHO, completely disregarding how complex decisions like this are actually made.
There's nothing necessarily incongruous about different policies for different venues with different context (inside, outside, different capacity restraints, seating configurations, masking or other requirements, game lengths, etc.), and in completely different time periods during an ever-changing pandemic with multiple unique strains of the virus, peaks and valleys in cases/hospitalizations/deaths -- and nobody really knowing how predictive or not those peaks and valleys will be of future fluctuations in the curve -- until armchair quarterbacks criticize the decisions later with all the benefits of hindsight and zero insights into all the data and discussions that actually informed those decisions.
And then trying to compare all that to policies for gatherings/events with completely different context, like airlines, subject to their own regulations, union considerations, etc. etc.
Rather than merely "following the money", how about the real world reality of the many variables those decision-makers actually consider, including but not limited to:
-- the most credible prevailing science known at that time
-- the well-being of whichever people they are responsible for (students, student-athletes, coaches, stadium personnel, faculty, airline passengers, airline crew, etc. etc.)
-- sense of responsibility or at least care for all of those attendees' families, including elderly or immunocompromised family members and others they come in contact with
-- all other stakeholders and their interests, concerns, pushback
-- legal risks in a highly litigious society
-- economics of any decision (and surely that can't be a bad thing to consider for the Covid-mockers/downplayers, since you've been voicing far more concerns about economic impacts than health impacts from the get go)
-- PR, brand image, employee relations, staff recruitment, union impacts
-- resources available to monitor/enforce whatever policies are decided upon
-- whatever they've seen/learned as of that date about public willingness to do X, Y or Z, pandemic mitigation fatigue, messaging requirements and challenges, etc.
And all of that while taking the smart, mature "err on the side of caution" approach during what has already proved to be a very seriously lethal global pandemic, no matter how the mockers love to use the most recent less-scary Omicron strain to miraculously define all of Covid-19 since its first appearance.
But yeh, it's probably just "follow the money"... that makes so much sense.
All federal and state supreme courts have determined that that the right to face your accusers includes the witnesses not wearing masks?
Last edited:
All that just means it doesn’t really matter. You can’t stop viruses with all these silly half measures. They’re for appearances. All we do is attenuate them. We extend the time before they’re done. I think it’s fair to say attenuating then had a value before therapeutics were developed but we’re lucky the vaccines turned out to do that since they don’t stop spread. The government should be ashamed for not putting cures/therapies under Warp Speed conditions and this administration is very guilty of totally ignoring, even impeding, valuable treatment because it stupidly thought supporting treatment was contrary to the vaccination message. It’s shameful.
I hate that whole side of the argument. The best argument is it’s not a vaccine in terms of state interest. It’s a therapeutic, and as laudable goal it is to encourage others to get good preventive and post infection therapies, people have a right to refuse them.
I am not anti vax. I’m anti mandate. I know Gov never gives back power. It always seeks more. And the Gov is made up of knuckleheads.
I also think the vaccine helps if you get it. I know 50+ who have had omicron. The three sickest, including my step son, were not vaxxed at all. None were really bad. But they sure knew they had it.
Last edited:
Nope, Omicron does not define the entire Covid-19 experience, Covid-19 vaccines are not "pre-therapeutics" (WTH is that?), and what you describe as "silly half measures" would likely have saved us all tens or hundreds of thousands of unnecessary (or at least unnecessarily hastened) deaths, an even greater number of unnecessarily severely injured and billions in hospitalization costs if more Americans had complied more completely with all (or at least more) mitigation recommendations, including proper hygiene and social distancing, masks (even though obviously not foolproof) and prompt, full vaccination as soon as available.
It's ludicrous to make definitive statements without factual support like your assertion that this administration "totally ignored" valuable treatments -- what treatments (just waiting until April's warm weather when Covid would miraculously vanish, Chlorine bleach, Hydroxy, Ivermectin?...and if those are what you refer to, do you apply the same "100% efficacy and 0 risks must be proven by scientific study beyond any doubt" level of requirements as mockers of masks, distancing, vaccination seem to demand of those?)
Pardon me if I weigh everyone's epidemiology qualifications, their biases, logic of their arguments and strength of their supporting data and end up assigning much more weight to the highly qualified, trained, experienced experts at Mayo Clinic and the CDC (even given their snafus during this learning-as-we-go pandemic) over the opinions and resentments of AllNoles, no matter how great a Nole you are, and other Covid-19 downplaying Warchanters, as well as Dr. Stella Immanuel, Tucker Carlson (whose commentary his own attorney admitted is neither factual nor based in research), Mike Lindell, discredited Dr. Robert Malone, etc.
oh, and for the record, I don't like mandates. I don't think anyone does. It's so unfortunate that more of our fellow Americans can't comply with simple thoughtful mitigation measures that would make all this talk of mandates unnecessary.
Get the facts about COVID-19 vaccines
Find out about the COVID-19 vaccines, the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination and the possible side effects.
www.mayoclinic.org
The feds literally took the antibody treatments from Florida and all but shut down the flow. Had it been stockpiling it many would have been able to get it. But they didn’t.
Don’t be dense. The purported vaccine helps mitigate impact of virus if you get it. That wasn’t the plan but it does. That’s not bad. It’s good. That’s best described as a pre infection therapeutic to me. If you like another word, share it. But it’s accurately descriptive.
Don’t care the strain. Tons of vaccinated were getting it abs spreading it before Omicron. You can deny it but Fauci and Biden didn’t. They were shifting primarily to the therapeutic value before omicron started taking over in December.
Don’t be dense. The purported vaccine helps mitigate impact of virus if you get it. That wasn’t the plan but it does. That’s not bad. It’s good. That’s best described as a pre infection therapeutic to me. If you like another word, share it. But it’s accurately descriptive.
Don’t care the strain. Tons of vaccinated were getting it abs spreading it before Omicron. You can deny it but Fauci and Biden didn’t. They were shifting primarily to the therapeutic value before omicron started taking over in December.
I'm not in the least dense, but thanks for your concern.
It appears that you misunderstand what vaccines are (flu vaccines also don't stop all flu spread) and that you misunderstand the remedial meaning of "therapeutics".
Who is it that told you (nope, not Fauci) or any of us that vaccines totally stop ALL spread of every strain? And who led you or anyone to assess that Covid vaccines provide no value at all in reducing spread of any and all Covid strains (again, not focusing only on Omicron)? Why brush aside the very significant additional value in reducing severity of impacts as if that's not in and of itself vaccination-worthy? Let's be accurate here -- vaccines do so in a before-the-fact preventative manner for a significant % of everybody who thoughtfully gets vaccinated vs. only those looking for treatment after becoming infected.
I'm sorry that so many folks can't wrap their heads around the fact that guidance WILL change as we learn more about ANY novel virus. Novel coronavirus is, surprisingly, novel. Changing guidance by highly credentialed experts about a new, morphing pandemic is not incompetence or some devious conspiracy. That's bonkers. Can they and have they made mistakes? Sure, it's humans we're talking about here, not AI robots with perfect predictive skills.
Not to say communications of this level of importance aren't open to review and critique. They certainly are. Everybody involved should strive to make them as accurate, clear and well-explained, understandable, consistent and effective-in-encouraging-desired-behavior as is humanly possible given the context at the time... sure would be nice if there weren't so many people with loud bullhorns, including the Executive branch responsible for spearheading our initial attack of this pandemic and other Covid-19 downplayers, who have actively worked AGAINST the messaging we most needed.
Best of luck to us all. Hopefully it's clearer sailing from here.
I’m not brushing aside impact of it helping folks get it less severely. But the state has no interest in making people get things that help them suffer less. That’s a slippery slope we should be willing to fight a war over.
When people ask my opinion I say get a vaccine. I won’t keep getting them but I’m vaxxed. But no one should force people to get it.
They don’t force the flu shot. I don’t care what you call it but I’ve always understood it to help folks get it less severely if they get it. So if you call it a vaccine, it’s not. While nothing is 100% you need a hell of a lot higher level of efficacy to truly call something a vaccine.
This is like the rabbit in Alice In Wonderland saying words mean no more or no less than he means them to mean. This virus was flying around the “vaccinated” before. It was expected before omicron showed up. So it’s not a vaccine no matter how much you want to calling that.
And what’s your issue with prior executive branch? Pushed against shutdowns after initial I giving in. It was right. It created environment for your precious vaccines to be developed. Your president was vaxxed and encouraged people to get it. He didn’t mandate it and he shouldn’t have.
And looking at your post it looks like you agree with the delay in post infection treatments all out of some vaccine fetish? It’s mind numbing.
When people ask my opinion I say get a vaccine. I won’t keep getting them but I’m vaxxed. But no one should force people to get it.
They don’t force the flu shot. I don’t care what you call it but I’ve always understood it to help folks get it less severely if they get it. So if you call it a vaccine, it’s not. While nothing is 100% you need a hell of a lot higher level of efficacy to truly call something a vaccine.
This is like the rabbit in Alice In Wonderland saying words mean no more or no less than he means them to mean. This virus was flying around the “vaccinated” before. It was expected before omicron showed up. So it’s not a vaccine no matter how much you want to calling that.
And what’s your issue with prior executive branch? Pushed against shutdowns after initial I giving in. It was right. It created environment for your precious vaccines to be developed. Your president was vaxxed and encouraged people to get it. He didn’t mandate it and he shouldn’t have.
And looking at your post it looks like you agree with the delay in post infection treatments all out of some vaccine fetish? It’s mind numbing.
Last edited:
Yes, I fully understand that one of the reasons you routinely try to downplay the efficacy of Covid vaccines is because the more you can minimize their usefulness, the easier it is for you to place them outside of the public health protection purview of government. But no matter how well respected a WC poster you are, your claim that "the state has no interest in making people get things that help them suffer less" is a transparently flimsy premise... State and federal government has a long-established role/responsibility/authority to protect public health.
I'm not going to debate mandates themselves since my position is that we live in an interdependent society in which we should all do what we reasonably can (things that are not unduly burdensome) to avoid mandates being something we even need to consider. Getting people riled up on these boards about mandates just deflects and misses the point (probably purposely)... why not simply tackle or at least make a good faith effort to tackle any pandemic as grown fricking adults who don't need to assert our "freedom-fighting" machismo by resisting public health authority and sabotaging any chance of seeing if the best prevailing science actually WILL work, thereby increasing the call for mandates as a result... kind of a self-fulfilling prophesy for failure by all those who want to prove that damn gubberment wrong.
Federal Vaccine Mandates in the Courts
Dozens of lawsuits in multiple courts have been filed challenging federal COVID-19 vaccine mandates.
Seriously? Here you claim that flu and covid vaccines aren't really vaccines no matter how much "you" (ie I) want to call them that. Are you really trying to make it sound like it's just me calling vaccines vaccines and everybody else is onboard with you that they're actually "therapeutics" or "pre-therapeutics" or any label other than vaccines that you might also have tossed out there in this thread? WTH
Let's be crystal clear -- here are just some of the actually qualified authorized-to-decide-what's-called-what experts in the epidemiology/medical science arena who call influenza vaccine and Covid-19 vaccines "vaccines" --
the FDA
the CDC
the American Medical Association
the American College of Physicians
every university and medical research facility in the country
all the manufacturers of these vaccines
(and in the case of the flu vaccine, it's been properly called a vaccine since its development in the 1930/40s, and its labeling as a vaccine has never wavered)
Here's who calls them "therapeutics" or "pre-therapeutics" --
AllNoles (and perhaps a smattering of supportive WC posters on a sports message board, none of whom have any relevant qualifications to be challenging the group of experts above, at least not without alcoholic beverages and laughter)
I don't think we're supposed to debate politics even in the LR, so I'll just leave you with this optional light reading:
-- https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/11/trumps-lies-about-coronavirus/608647/
-- https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02800-9
-- https://www.businessinsider.com/ana...esponse-40-percent-us-deaths-avoidable-2021-2
-- https://fortune.com/2020/11/13/covid-trump-administration-mishandling-mistakes-coronavirus/
-- https://www.science.org/content/article/inside-story-how-trumps-covid-19-coordinator-undermined-cdc
-- https://www.usnews.com/news/best-co...rs-who-badly-mishandled-the-covid-19-pandemic
Vaccine fetish? Really?
I already made very clear that:
a) When it comes to the efforts our current administration has or hasn't made to properly evaluate potential post-infection treatments (I believe this category of drugs can indeed be described as "therapeutics" without any chuckling, once approved), I don't give your personal access to behind the scenes intel about those efforts quite as much credence as you apparently do,
and
b) When proponents such as yourself of these potential therapeutics (perhaps Hydroxy, Ivermectin, etc.) bristle at the authorities' failure to jump onboard with gusto from the minute they're first floated as effective treatments, I always wonder why you and your fellow supporters of these elixirs don't question the science behind them (specifically in relation to their safe, effective use against Covid-19) and demand anywhere near the efficacy guarantees that you require of Covid-19 vaccines, masks, etc.
"It's mind numbing."
I sincerely hope your accident rehab is progressing well.
Stay healthy and safe.
Go Noles!
“nder the specific circumstances presented by the global COVID-19 pandemic, . . . [a] mask requirement does not violate the Confrontation Clause.”
So only under the specific circumstances presented by the global COVID-19 pandemic, may a federal district court interpret the confrontation clause differently? It's a right. Some courts have gone full covid.
The federal government has never mandated vaccines outside of the military context. David P. Currie (far from a right winger) does an excellent job of laying out the federal government's role funding distribution of the small pox vaccine, and its lack of Constitutional authority to mandate vaccines under recent commerce clause jurisprudence.
At least several pre-infection therapeutics are available for various diseases. We don't call them vaccines--because they're not. When the covid-19 vaccines were introduced, they were advertised/promoted as "90+% effective at preventing transmission" (excluding JNJ which was only 70-80% effective at preventing transmission). Now we know that was a false claim. But they were labeled vaccines based on that claim.
Not really relevant to Covid-19 vaccines, but out of curiosity, please provide names of these “pre-infection therapeutics” you reference.
Please also provide any links to where Covid-19 vaccines were supposedly advertised/promoted (and by whom?) as “90+% effective at preventing transmission” and any substantiation at all of your allegation that meeting that alleged advertisement/promotion regarding transmission prevention of at least X% was a prerequisite for being labeled “vaccines”.
One of the cool things about message boards is how people promulgate stuff like this with no supporting evidence at all.
'Real world' study by CDC shows Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were 90% effective
A new study suggests the messenger RNA vaccines produced by Moderna and the Pfizer-BioNTech partnership appeared to be 90% effective in preventing Covid-19 infection in a real-world setting.
www.statnews.com
FAQ: Children's Vaccines
WebMD provides answers to common questions about children's vaccines, including when they should be given and possible side effects.
www.webmd.com
From webmd table Pfizer and Moderna clinical trials show 94-95% efficacy at preventing infection.
CDC claims 90% effectiveness at creating immunity. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7013e3.htm
You can find others with google. You can also find preinfection therapeutics with a google search. CDC touts them as well.
and the prior definition of “vaccine” does the heavy lifting for classifying something with a high immunization rate as a vaccine.
I wouldn’t say false claims. I think that brings in a fraud/intent aspect I’m not prepared to accept now. But they were clearly wrong. The “vaccines” are not nearly that efficacious. Which is why state has an insufficient basis to compel them. And that’s before we even get to the least restructure means test.
Your cite is early Spring last year. That hasn’t nearly held up.'Real world' study by CDC shows Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were 90% effective
A new study suggests the messenger RNA vaccines produced by Moderna and the Pfizer-BioNTech partnership appeared to be 90% effective in preventing Covid-19 infection in a real-world setting.
FAQ: Children's Vaccines
WebMD provides answers to common questions about children's vaccines, including when they should be given and possible side effects.
From webmd table Pfizer and Moderna clinical trials show 94-95% efficacy at preventing infection.
CDC claims 90% effectiveness at creating immunity. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7013e3.htm
You can find others with google. You can also find preinfection therapeutics with a google search. CDC touts them as well.
and the prior definition of “vaccine” does the heavy lifting for classifying something with a high immunization rate as a vaccine.
Come on! From the very beginning it was communicated by authorities that future strains of the virus may be able to evade the vaccines. By the way, people who are familiar with vaccines did not have to be told that. To use that as some sort of justification for your argument shows how weak your position is. By the way I am not in favor of mandates. Not because I believe there is some right to be unvaccinated. I am against them because of what it will do the work force.
BS. From the beginning--all the way through October 2021--it was said the "vaccines" were 90+% effective at immunizing the vaccinated.
You mean the law blog you linked that pointed out 3 courts that have ruled its not a right during the pandemic?
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Golf Ting-Woad take 1-2 finish as FSU claims Collegiate Invitational- Latest: Bob Ferrante
