Can you agree? No government vaccine mandates until pharmaceutical companies become liable

It is, isn't it? Given that masks are probably more effective at preventing spread than the vaccines, but schools seem to be allowing vaccinated students to not wear masks now.

We're not talking about private institutions. These are public institutions.

 

Different how? Only the platform for delivering the virus' antigen is different. Basically it does what all vaccines do: it presents a fragment of viral antigen to the immune system so that the immune system builds antibodies and cellular immunity against it.

Are you reading too much into the conspiracy theories that this vaccine changes the human DNA (no, it doesn't), that it is gene therapy (no, it isn't)? I hope you don't think there is a microchip there made by Bill Gates, LOL. Or are you suggesting that it is more dangerous than other traditional vaccines? No, it isn't. It's one of the safest vaccines ever made. Why should any different rules apply for this vaccine as compared to any other vaccines required by colleges and universities? Most of the others are MORE dangerous.

The one point you might have is that this vaccine is still under Emergency Use Authorization and not fully approved but this is likely to change in the next few weeks. Give it 4 or 5 more weeks and the Pfizer and Moderna will be fully approved, so what would be the excuse for students to treat it any differently?

The real difference is the POLITICAL HYSTERIA around this.

It's pretty simple. It's a biological way to fight off a dangerous viral disease, by training the immune system to fight it off, like ALL vaccines.

Politics should NEVER have interfered with this.

Like masks: they are very simple public health tools to partially decrease odds of spreading an infection and getting infected. They are not this huge banner for MY FREEEEEDOOOMMMMSSS!!! that a bunch of idiots made them out to be.

 

Yes, it is. I am for everybody wearing masks. And the right kinds (N95 and up, with proper seal). But again, this is all such political hysteria... Yesterday in Tennessee a meeting of a school board considering masks ended with people issuing death threats to a female doctor the superintendent had invited just to give a short lecture about what the Delta is, how to be safe, etc.

Which ones? Most colleges and universities in America that are implementing vaccine mandates are private.
But I favor public ones being able to issue these rules too, if for example a local school board wants it. Most aren't, though. At least until the EUA turns into a full approval, most public organizations are still not mandating it, although some are, and by the way, with support from the courts.

 

LOL, I love it. And one should add - before you drive up, stop by the booth on your right and fill up your form to compete for the Darwin Award.

 

I answered your full message but allow me to come back and address this part in more depth [brace for it; this will be long].

People are getting very confused regarding the stats - which is not surprising; lay people are not used to thinking in biostatistical terms.

You see articles saying "Vaccinated people are able to transmit the Delta" and "Vaccinated people have the same viral load as the unvaccinated ones when they catch the Delta so they transmit it just as well" and so one, and you conclude, "see, it's the same thing, vaccinated or unvaccinated, you transmit the Delta in the same way."

But...

Not with the same frequency!!! Yes, vaccinating people still decreases the rate of transmission, for the following reason:

It's only *once* a vaccinated person catches a breakthrough infection with Delta that the person is *then* able to transmit it, obviously.

But the thing is, MOST vaccinated people do NOT catch a breakthrough infection. The vaccine still prevents MOST people from catching it, so, it DOES decrease the odds of transmission. Yes, once you catch it (due to whatever reason - your antibodies have faded, you are old or with conditions that damper your immune defense, etc.), you do transmit it even if you're vaccinated, but if you don't catch it in the first place (thanks to a high titer of neutralizing antibodies) then you don't transmit it.

It's probably more now (as people move further and further away from their last shots and Delta spreads more, breakthrough infections are increasing), but by the 3rd week of July when I saw these stats, we had 153,000 people in the US with breakthrough infections (that is, fully vaccinated but still caught the Delta). But... look at the denominator. This is out of 156 million vaccinated Americans, by that same point in time. That is, only 0.089% of the vaccinated people had breakthrough infections that allowed them to become transmitters.

Yes, this number is slowly climbing... but very slowly. It hasn't even reached 1% yet! So if 99% of the vaccinated people don't catch a breakthrough infection, those are out of the pool of potential transmitters, get it?

----------

There's more about this, in another issue of not looking at the denominator. One sees a headline saying "74% of the people who got Delta in a beach party in Massachusetts were vaccinated."

OK, so for some reason this beach party was a superspreader event. Who knows why? Maybe a still to be identified sub-variant even more infectious or the peoples' behavior, getting very close to each other in a compact crowd, talking loudly and closely to each other unmasked, kissing each other? Anyway, seems like an outlier event. Even while we only had the ancestral variants, some events turned into superspreaders, others didn't. This virus is mysterious, so, who knows what made this party particularly bad? Doesn't seem to be rule.

From this, you think OK it's even worse for the vaccinated! 74%!!! Well, what if almost all people in this party were vaccinated? And given whatever local condition applied, the party became a superspreader for the people who were there, who happened to be vaccinated. You don't know how many would have caught the virus if they were all unvaccinated. Maybe 100% of them, if this party was particularly bad for a superspreader event. We don't even know another denominator, how many people attended that party.

And then, where's the denominator for the rest of the state? Is this out of how many who were fully vaccinated in the State of Massachusetts? The answer is, 4,401,683, as of August 12. So, how many got it in that party, 200 or 300? I don't remember. Let's go with 300. Well, that's 0.0068% of the vaccinated population in Massachusetts.

See how the headlines can be misleading?

So, it's not like 74% of ALL vaccinated people in Massachusetts are catching the Delta. It was ONE anomalous, atypical event. We aren't seeing other reports like this. Again, we don't know what local conditions codified for this event. So far from representing 74% of all vaccinated people, this cluster accounts for only 0.0068% of the vaccinated people there.

Huh, seen this other way, the bombastic headline is kind of cut to size, isn't it??

And the interesting thing is, of all the vaccinated people who got it in that beach party, only 4 needed to go to a hospital and no one died. So, yes, the vaccine was still very protective, even in face of some sort of weird anomaly that infected so many.

------------

So, let's look at your assumption - masks more likely to protect than the vaccine. Do the numbers support that? Actually, they don't. I presented here in previous posts the biggest meta-analysis on mask use and relative risk of infection. The risk in average (with almost all studies in this meta-analysis being with N95 respirators which aren't what most people wear) dropped to an adjusted relative risk (aRR) of 0.18. That is, if compared to an absolute risk of 1.0, the masks brought the risk down from 100% to 18% - an 82% reduction.

Actually vaccines have performed well better than that, before the Delta. Pfizer, 95% and Moderna, 94%.

You'll say, but now it's lower, with the Delta. Yes, it is, but we need to compare apples to apples. At the time of the above study, Delta didn't exist yet. So, while the variants were the ancestral ones, masks protected 82% and vaccines protected 94-95%.

Now with Delta likely if the studies were repeated, masks would protect less too, like vaccines are now protecting less (against infection; still protecting a lot against hospitalization and death).

Not to forget, this study used mostly (with 3 exceptions) healthcare professionals. These are much more likely to know how to wear a mask properly. And again, it was done mostly with N95s (a few components of the meta-analysis, with surgical healthcare grade face masks - but no cloth masks, no bandanas, no neck gaiters, and no flimsy paper face masks - healthcare grade face masks being the ASTM level 2 and 3 that also have blown melt layers; they are not the ridiculous paper masks you get at Walmart).

So you get mostly healthcare professionals and mostly N95s (with a few medical grade face masks thrown in) and the overall protection is 82%. What is it for the general public who stupidly wear the masks under the nose, or can't achieve a good seal, or wear essentially useless neck goiters or mostly ineffective cloth masks or paper masks?

Sure, this study was addressing the protection of the wearer, not the protection of the community. But it is naive to think it is grossly different. The masks don't have a "One Way Only" sign on them. If they efficiently filter the virus when you are inhaling, they also filter the virus when you are exhaling.

------------

This said, even if it turns out that masks protect more than the vaccines (I doubt it, especially given that most people don't wear professionally sealed N95s), the actually smart move is obviously to be vaccinated AND to wear masks (at least indoors or when in close proximity to unmasked people), until hopefully this Delta dies out (hopefully we won't get an even worse one next) or this virus kindly mutates to a LESS dangerous form (so far unfortunately it hasn't happened) or we come up with a very efficient medication that can immediately treat it if people catch it.

 

But even if those cloth masks reduce spread by 50% that in and of itself is a win because it will slow the viral spread. Countries that masked up (Most of Asia) did better than they should given the population density. We are seeing breakthrough surges in many of those countries at the moment and like everywhere it seems to be a combination of Delta and pandemic fatigue

 

Certainly; that's why I said that I favor BOTH mask use (the right kinds and worn the right way) AND vaccination.

Any reduction in relative risk is better than no reduction.

Still, people need to be educated on what kinds of mask to wear, how to wear them properly, and it would be lovely if the right kinds got distributed to the population too, domestically produced through the Defense Production Act. Both our current administration and the last one completely ignored this dimension. No massive domestic production of PPE (despite we being the richest country on Earth), and virtually no educational campaign on TV or other media.

 

Somehow it reminds me of the dynamics in play in the old book "Lord Of The Flies".

 

No. You are claiming a view is held by Constitutionalists that reveals that you are not one. You are repeating the false claims, about Constitutionalists, made by those who wish to denigrate those who honor the creative power of free markets, which is nothing more than Free People engaging in consensual transactions.

1. The government has always had a legitimate role in regulating business. Regulate means "make regular", not "prohibit".
2. Government schools are not "free enterprise".
3. Government controlling society through corporations is National Socialism, not US Constitutional Liberal Democracy.
4. Have you checked out enrollment figures lately? Making it more difficult for young people to attend isn't the smartest move at the moment.

University lays off 100 professors due to COVID.

How many of these supported the lockdowns and various prohibitions on attendance? ​

Maybe they can learn to code.

​

 

Doctors are liable even though they only have the ability to hurt only one patient at a time. The vaccine has the ability to hurt millions of people, yet they aren't liable. Typically, drug makers do long term testing for between 5 - 10 years. Covid Vaccines have been available for less than 2. That makes it experimental. I don't play test animal unless I get paid for it.

 

No, this isn't a Constitutional matter, that schools require vaccination for kids to enroll. The schools are not pinning them down and sticking shots in their arms. If they don't want to abide by the rules, then don't enroll and become uneducated. Good luck having success in life with that (with a few exceptions). Maybe they can learn to code.

See, the mandates being examined by the Courts these days have NOTHING to do with school requirements. Like I said, schools requiring immunization of students for enrollment has existed in this country for decades, with no political outcry.

Yes, some schools are governmental. Many more are private. My university is private. My university is elite enough that we're not missing a single student. They are extremely happy for making it into our very selective school, and if someone drops out, there is a large wait list to fill the gap. And we haven't fired a single professor. But this argument of yours is unrelated to the topic. Even those schools that may be suffering from low enrollment and are having to lay off people, don't desire outbreaks of Covid-19, which are much more disruptive than a couple of semesters with lower enrollment, not to forget, they are also dangerous to the lives and limbs of students, faculty, and staff, which is a higher value than the financial bottom line.

About the larger matter of mandates for employees, we've debated it before, I said the high courts had been siding with hospitals on this, but I didn't know what the Supreme Court would do. You said you had arguments for the Supreme Court to shut it down. I said I didn't know because constitutional scholars were divided on the issue; some thought the Biden Administration would prevail, some thought it wouldn't.

It turns out that the Supreme Court has ruled and we were both right and both wrong because the decision split in the middle: the SC confirmed the mandate for healthcare workers, but struck down the mandate for other kinds of workers.

Which is fine. Actually it aligns with my wishes. I said here multiple times that I don't support mandates except for healthcare workers, for various reasons I articulated. Seems like the SC agreed with me on this one, but I was wrong in anticipating that maybe they'd uphold it for other workers too (although despite believing that this would happen, like I said I don't support those mandates).

Now, what I can't start comprehending is: why in the hell did you post a meme about Dr. Fauci in a reply to me? Have I ever given you the idea that I'm a Fauci fan or supporter? I've criticized Fauci several times here. Just, not the in hysterical way some Republicans do because while Fauci is often wrong (and I've strongly criticized him for it) he is also often right. For Republicans the equation is Fauci Man BAAAAD!!!! and this is not really because of his positions, not even because of the blunders for which I've criticized him, but rather because they identify Fauci with Democrats, again something I'm puzzled with. I have no idea if Fauci deep inside is a Democrat or a Republican or an Independent or completely a-political. He certainly has never given any public indication of his political affiliation or leaning. Remember, Fauci was nominated by Ronald Reagan, received from George W. Bush the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and advised presidents in both Republican and Democrat administration, including Trump's. I see no indication whatsoever that Fauci is a Democrat. Actually his demographic, older white medical doctor, traditionally trends Republican (I'm a member of the same demographic, but I'm independent and centrist, leaning right in many issues, and left in some, probably with a predominance of rightist positions in topics that are not related to Medicine and the Sciences where my positions align more with those embraced by leftists, although not entirely - for example I find Senator Bernie Sanders to be a moron and his idea of Medicare For All to be a full blown disaster).

 

Or maybe they can go to trade school, complete without debt, and earn a hundred thou/yr plus during those earning years when their "educated" peers are running up a $hundred grand in debt and earning very little. Most Constitutionalists recognise the right of private entities to require vaccines. They have been tested in court and passed legal muster, but, enrollments are dropping, which leads to layoffs, and maybe those folks can learn to code.

None of that's in dispute, and frankly my points are as close to the thread topic as all that.

So you're fine with the layoffs, as in your estimation the resulting safety of the remaining is worth the loss of students and faculty.

I don't recall stating that the healthcare mandate would be struck down, and that was not an expectation of mine, though I fully expected the OSHA mandate to die, for the reasons that it did.

I was surprised that the CMS rule only got 5/9 votes, enough so that I'm now a little less confident that the vaccine mandate for federal contractors will survive eventual Supreme Court review.

https://reason.com/volokh/

Essentially something this big would need to be authorized by an elected legislature, it will not be dictated by a single person, in our constitutional system, in order to get the next test, which is, do the federal powers listed in the constitution authorize even congress to impose such a thing? Since Congress has never attempted that, that remains an untested question.

Because you said, and I wholeheartedly agree, that you would have done a much better better job than Fauci.

All I can do is relate my own personal journey with him. Initially, he struck me as very intelligent, clear-minded, and as he was 80 yrs old at the time, in astoundingly good health. Then it was early March of 2020 and the Princess Cruise Ship is under quarantine in the San Francisco Bay, they are hauling dead bodies off it daily, and Fauci is on television saying "If you are healthy and you have a cruise booked, go cruise!" My jaw hit the floor, and I paused and replayed it, and sure enough, that's what he said, and I turned to my wife and asked her "If we had a cruise booked, would you still go?" Of course the answer was resounding no. No one with a brain would, though we had friends that did. And then we all saw the cruise ships stranded after the lockdown, again the dead being hauled off daily while nation after nation refused to let them off load.

Then he lied about the masks, said don't wear them unless your sick, we hadn't learned yet that he Federal government had failed to restock after the previous virus emergency in 2009 and he wanted to save them for the front line workers, which is understandable, but, rather than telling the truth, a manipulative liar will always resort to their go to move, manipulative lying.

Then of course all the lies and evasions about the wet market bat soup, person to person transfer, airborne transmission. I pulled up the location of the bio labs, the wet market and the bat caves, some 600 miles away, and as soon as I learned that the labs were playing with this virus, the inference to the best explanation was that someone broke containment, walked out sick and started transmitting to other people. Fauci of course knew this the entire time, but we got the soft shoe shuffle until it became undeniable, and then for a year he concealed that he was part the scheme to evade the US ban on this work by funding this very research in Wuhan. At that point I was done with him. I'm still very impressed with his physical health and mental clarity, I hope at 82 that i'm similarly blessed, but, I have far more respect for your input. I'd be quite satisfied with never hearing from or seeing him again, and I'll happily heap abuse on him at every opportunity.

​

Have you seen that the same folks that ended up arranging funding through Fauci first tried to fund it through the US military, who refused because it was too dangerous. Apparently they wanted to insert the spike protein on the virus enabling it to infect humans and then reinfect the bats through aerosol transfer, in order to stimulate the bat's immune response. The military passed because they were concerned that after it was able to infect humans that it would escape the lab. After striking out with the military they went to Fauci, and obtained the funding, and it appears that it escaped, and now we have 5,551,991 dead and counting, with 53,962,703 infected, so even the closed case fatality rate drops to a 1/2% is another 270,000 dead, if no one else gets infected, but, small chance of that we are still seeing 850,000 new cases a day, which supports 4,250 deaths a day, or another 100,000 dead in 3-4 weeks. We pay him a lot of money, and he's done a very bad thing.

Can't disagree with that. Fauci's political affiliation is unimportant to me, we all have a duty to observe the standard of "a reasonable person acting prudently" in the discharge of our duties and it's not clear to me that he has been.

There are enough serious questions around Fauci that, in my opinion, he should be on paid leave, and under investigation to determine if he has been meeting the appropriate standard of professional conduct and judgment, and if not, he should be discharged.

 

Just gonna leave this here. Maybe it's been posted before, as the article is from May, 2020. One thing that struck me is this from the article:

"A colleague once told me how Webster's Dictionary came about. Webster said that the way the evildoers would change the Constitution was not by amending it but by changing the definitions—a legal sneak attack."

Mind you, this is well before the vaccines came out and and even longer before we had the CDC redefining what a vaccine is, which happened last year (2021). Much more in the article.

The Injection Fraud – It’s Not a Vaccine

https://home.solari.com/deep-state-tactics-101-the-covid-injection-fraud-its-not-a-vaccine/

.... on CDC redefining vaccine:

Why did CDC change its definition for ‘vaccine’? Agency explains move as skeptics lurk

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article254111268.html

 

Can't disagree with most of what you said of Fauci. Glad that you're against him for the right reasons, and not for somehow identifying him with liberals or leftists or Democrats. With one exception: I wouldn't be as certain as you seem to be that this specific coronavirus, the SARS-CoV-2, came from a lab leak that happened in a project directly funded by the US, but it's not impossible. I find it unlikely, although not impossible.

Like I explained in the past, people think "gain of function research" as being the mother of all evil, and meant to develop biological weapons, which is not the case. The goal of this type of research is to predict and protect humankind from the next pandemic. Of course, this involves NOT letting these viruses escape, thus the Biosafety Lab 4 classification that is required. There are 59 BSL-4 labs in the world, 4 of them in the United States. The Wuhan Institute of Virology is one of the 59, and the largest one. Don't automatically assume that it must have failed, just because it is located in the city of Wuhan and this SARS-CoV-2 *seems* to have originated in that city. Coincidences do happen. I'm less impressed by them than the general public, because as a scientist, I think in terms of "correlation is not necessarily causation" and being familiar with biostatistics, I'm well aware that coincidental flukes do happen.

I don't even know for sure if this virus originated in the city of Wuhan. Frozen blood samples in Italy, part of a research project in lung cancer in the Milano area, later got unfrozen and tested for the SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies, and several tested positive, and they were collected several months before the first case was spotted in Wuhan (earliest in Italy in September 2019; late December in Wuhan); did you know that?

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0300891620974755

Who is to say that this virus didn't start in Italy and a Chinese tourist visiting Milano brought it back with him/her to Wuhan, and we didn't see an early larger outbreak in Milano because the virus wasn't as infectious there, but then it mutated in Wuhan and started spreading? We've seen this virus getting progressively more infectious, from the Wuhan ancestral strain to the Alpha variant in the UK to Delta in India to Omicron in South Africa. So who is to say that the true path wasn't Italy -> Wuhan -> UK -> India -> South Africa, and the reason why people often dismiss the Milano early cases when they hear of them - that there wasn't a large outbreak in Milano at the time - was simply because it was minimally infectious there (and fizzled there, but not before being passed to a Chinese tourist), then after being carried to Wuhan, mutated and got more infectious there, like it did later while spreading to several other places? Bat species that carry coronaviruses exist in Italy too.

Oh, and Italy also has a BSL-4 lab, the National Institute for Infectious Diseases IRCCS L. Spallanzani, although it's in Roma, not in Milano. But hey, it's not uncommon for foreign tourists visiting Italy to go to multiple cities, such as, arriving in Roma by air, then traveling to Firenze, Venezia, and finishing up in Milano to see il Duomo, il Teatro Alla Scala, la Galleria, il Castello Sforzesco, la Pinacoteca di Brera, etc.; the international airports in Roma and Milano get the most traffic so agencies that do group tourism will often have their group landing in Rome and taking off from Milano. So, if you favor the BSL-4 escape route, it could perfectly have happened in Italy, too.

Other described early detections (in sewage water preserved for research) before the original Wuhan ones, happened in Barcelona, Spain (in freaking March 2019!!!), and Florianópolis, Brazil (in November 2019). The Barcelona detection was of fragments and is more controversial, but the Florianópolis detection was of the full virus, confirmed by genomic sequencing.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33714813/

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.13.20129627v1

So, as a matter of fact, we don't even know where this virus really came from. We only know that the first detected as-it-happened outbreak was in Wuhan (the small Milano, Italy outbreak was only detected one year later through a curious group that poked around older frozen blood samples, after it had already fizzled. Barcelona, Spain, was even before Italy (Brazil, in-between Italy and Wuhan).

Did you know that the "Spanish Flu" did not originate in Spain? We do not know where it originated. We know for sure that it wasn't in Spain. The possible origins are France, China, Britain, or the United States. It is called the "Spanish Flu" because the first outbreak that was spoken of was in Spain, but later it's been determined that it wasn't the first one, but rather, other places had it but suffered censorship (at the time, not to spoil the morale of troops during World War I) and the outbreaks went unreported.

Why nobody talks much about these early detections in Italy, Spain, and Brazil? Because politically, it's best to call it "the China virus" or the "Wuhan virus", so these countries aren't eager for it to be renamed "the Italy virus" or the "Milan virus"; or the "Spain Virus / the Barcelona Virus; or the "Brazil virus / the Florianópolis virus." Politically (and as you know and I deplore, this pandemic got extremely politicized), it is best and more expedient to blame big evil China.

------------

Unlike most people here, I'm familiar with BSL-4 labs. I'll tell you, it takes a lot of human error (by some VERY highly trained people) to get a virus to escape from a BSL-4 lab. On the other hand, people by the hundreds of thousands per year visit bat caves for tourism and get close to the beasts to snatch pictures. What's 600 miles? Haven't you ever traveled for tourism 600 miles away, and then returned to your city (potentially carrying something you caught in your travels)?

Please tell me, who do you think is more likely to catch a virus from an animal?

This woman?



Or this man?



The woman is a worker in a BSL-4 lab (the Bernhard Nocht Institute for Tropical Medicine in Hamburg, Germany).

The man, believe it or not, is a scientist from the Chinese CDC. Seems like he's quite the expert in properly wearing a mask... If a scientist behaves like this in a bat cave, imagine how hundreds of thousands of lay tourists behave...

So, your conclusion "Fauci = SARS-CoV-2 lab escape" is far from proven.

But yes, I abhor him for the other blunders and deliberate lies he dispensed.

 

~ Not to mention the covid-19 " vaccine " is not necessary for children.

~ You can say that again !

~ At this point we know neither prevent the spread of covid-19 ...

Is this Paul Manafort .. ? ​

 

Yes for about the last 20-30 years. They threatened to not supply vaccines to the USA unless the stated did something about the nuisance lawsuits

 

~ China is also exempt from liability. Isn't that nice ... ?

 

OK

OK. Read through this. Fascinating stuff. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285579/

I had read, I believe while searching for case zero that previous to the outbreak that folks working in bat caves suddenly died that it was suspected was the work of something very close to SARS II.

So, it's a widespread practice to routinely collect and preserve sewage samples in many parts of the world to preserve this record in case we need to run something like this down later?

Yes, I heard that it may have actually originated in the US and then as we added troops to fight WWI, it spread throughout the world.

Do you think it would have been helpful if China had been more upfront about the person to person transfer they were experiencing, before 5,000,000 visitors to left Wuhan for all parts of the world, as the international agreements that they are party to, require?

I appreciate the detailed response. I understand that we are not at the point of conclusions, but, consider this:

She certainly didn't immediately view a lab link as beyond consideration. And note that she focused on disposal. I focused on an infected employee walking out of a lab and into town. Given how tightly China controls information, I'm surprised she said this much.

https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/o...y-wuhan-shouldnt-dismissed-column/4765985001/

The social media giants blocking all discussion of this potential source wasn't helpful overall.

 

Seems that a regulation specifically on point has more authority than a "longstanding practice" that never included vaccine mandates, or a President's desire that it were otherwise.

(v) The resident, resident representative, or staff member has the opportunity to accept or refuse a COVID-19 vaccine, and change their decision;
42 CFR § 483.80 - Infection control. | CFR | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)

 

No.

 

Wouldn't a government mandate excuse the manufacturer. They could say, well, we didn't force them to take it. The government did. And of course it is essentially a very safe drug which arguably saves millions of lives. So where is the culpability?

 

I will, later. Watching the NFL now.

It happens.

Not really, but various research projects in public health and infectious diseases here and there sometimes look at sewage samples.

Yep.

Definitely. And it seems like they delayed the notifications in order to gobble up all the PPE for themselves, instead of honoring export contracts. Despicable.

But see, she didn't find anything, and the genome is different. That's one of the reasons why I said "this specific virus, the SARS-CoV-2" - Ron Paul makes all this stink about gain of function research and people automatically assume that it's about THIS coronavirus, but nothing indicates such. See?
But I did say that it's not impossible. I just find it unlikely.

That's because it's misinformation. Show me a virus being cultivated at the BSL-4 Wuhan Virology lab with the same genome of the SARS-CoV-2 and then it won't be misinformation. Earlier on, I posted a paper detailing the differences.

 

Anti-vaxers are basically people who want to **** in the streets and then clog up our hospitals when they get cholera. This is what conservatism has done for us.

 

Vaccine cultist are basically people who want to s*** in your body and say "sorry for your luck, it's for the greater good" when you suffer harm as a result of a vaccine.

 

Actually, in some areas the majority of the hospitalizations are those who are already vaccinated