COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events - Page 1569

starting strength gym
Page 1569 of 1665 FirstFirst ... 56910691469151915591567156815691570157115791619 ... LastLast
Results 15,681 to 15,690 of 16645

Thread: COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

  1. #15681
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    46,585

    Default

    • starting strength seminar december 2021
    • starting strength seminar february 2022
    • starting strength seminar april 2022
    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeYoung View Post
    The problem here is that these points do not reflect settled law regarding vaccine mandates. Vaccine mandates regarding the smallpox vaccine were upheld by the Supreme Court in 1905 as cited by "Jacobson v. Massachusetts" which ruled that you don't have the freedom to place other people at risk. This ruling was later upheld regarding vaccine mandates for children in school and was referred to as settled law. Recently the Supreme Court refused to hear a case against Indiana University's required vaccine mandate, further cementing this as settled law.
    Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857.

    Other peoples obesity and diabetes does not place someone else at risk as these are not communicable diseases so these aren't apt comparisons. The whole minorities and gunshot argument is simply too ridiculous to comment on. But I will say it is also strange to say that gun control doesn't work when there have been no meaningful gun control restrictions that have been placed into law, but that is an entirely different discussion.

    If you want to make the case that certain groups should pay more for health insurance for poor lifestyle choices (smoking, obesity, etc), I'm all for it. Why should I pay more for health insurance because (the proverbial) you wanted to smoke for 50 years. I personally think the same should be said for those who refuse to be vaccinated for COVID. I can guarantee that insurance companies currently have actuaries looking into this and I certainly would prefer those who are unvaccinated to pay more for their insurance. Why should I pay for your poor choice? If you work for the federal government (or you are contracted by the federal government) and you don't want to get your required vaccine, you have the option to find a new job. Remember, you aren't being fired, but you quit based upon your beliefs. Same goes for any private sector employer. Why should they risk their employees being absent from the office, factory, etc. because people didn't want to get their vaccine. It will cost them money and drag down the economy if large portions of their employees are out sick. I am betting that once people are shown consequences for their choices things will change. But if people are fine with having their employment opportunities limited and paying higher care premiums so they don't have to get the vaccine that is perfectly fine with me.
    The rest of this is too ridiculous to comment on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Grantham View Post
    Here's the original report for those that would like to see more than the data picked out here.

    https://assets.publishing.service.go..._-_week_36.pdf
    Would you care to comment on his use of the data in this pdf?

  2. #15682
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Ozarks
    Posts
    956

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    The rest of this is too ridiculous to comment on.
    Gone. The hubris held by our egos. I've already felt it many times in the new line of work. I've thought many times "if I could only make these people..."

    Thank God I have been humbled severely enough in my life to remember the lesson of the flaws in my own human condition, but I am not a saint. And I have no patience left, now, to engage them in discussion.

  3. #15683
    Join Date
    Sep 2021
    Posts
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857.
    I am assuming you are posting that to indicate that there was in fact a horrible misjustice regarding the Supreme Court's ruling in 1857 regarding the citizenship of descendants of African American slaves? I am left to assume this because, as per usual, you left out the context and lazily posted a reference. Amazingly, this laziness is what I was addressing in my initial post. Regardless, that decision was overturned with he passage of the 13th and 14th amendments and is no longer law. The vaccine mandate, however, has had repeated challenges and very recently the Supreme Court refused to hear the latest challenge as it was settled law. If you want to challenge the mandate in court that is fine, I will simply cite Joe Biden and say "have at it".

    If you believe vaccine mandates are unconstitutional, feel free to challenge them in court. Push for that constitutional amendment that will overturn these laws so you are free to get others sick. I just wouldn't hold out a whole lot of hope regarding the overturning of previous precedents in this instance. Just don't act like you are "losing your freedoms" as these mandates have been put in place long before any of us were a citizen of this country.

  4. #15684
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    St. Joseph, MO
    Posts
    369

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    Would you care to comment on his use of the data in this pdf?
    No thanks. Just posting to fill in gaps that might exist. People can draw their own conclusions.

  5. #15685
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    929

    Default

    So because they can't discredit this Warp Speed approved product like they did with IVM and HCQ, suffocate the market instead. It's almost appears like they want people to die. Texas Doctor Warns Florida and Others: Feds May Ration Monoclonal Antibodies | ZeroHedge

  6. #15686
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    46,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeYoung View Post
    I am assuming you are posting that to indicate that there was in fact a horrible misjustice regarding the Supreme Court's ruling in 1857 regarding the citizenship of descendants of African American slaves? I am left to assume this because, as per usual, you left out the context and lazily posted a reference. Amazingly, this laziness is what I was addressing in my initial post. Regardless, that decision was overturned with he passage of the 13th and 14th amendments and is no longer law. The vaccine mandate, however, has had repeated challenges and very recently the Supreme Court refused to hear the latest challenge as it was settled law. If you want to challenge the mandate in court that is fine, I will simply cite Joe Biden and say "have at it".

    If you believe vaccine mandates are unconstitutional, feel free to challenge them in court. Push for that constitutional amendment that will overturn these laws so you are free to get others sick. I just wouldn't hold out a whole lot of hope regarding the overturning of previous precedents in this instance. Just don't act like you are "losing your freedoms" as these mandates have been put in place long before any of us were a citizen of this country.
    I posted it to demonstrate the the Supreme Court has been very frequently wrong. As you know. They will be challenged in court.

  7. #15687
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Los Alamos, NM
    Posts
    2,402

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeYoung View Post

    If you want to make the case that certain groups should pay more for health insurance for poor lifestyle choices (smoking, obesity, etc), I'm all for it. Why should I pay more for health insurance because (the proverbial) you wanted to smoke for 50 years.
    Frame the question in terms of life insurance premiums.

    Have they gone up because of COVID? Do they differentiate for vaccinated and non vaccinated?

    They certainly adjust and test for smoking and BMI.

  8. #15688
    Join Date
    Sep 2021
    Posts
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    I posted it to demonstrate the the Supreme Court has been very frequently wrong. As you know. They will be challenged in court.
    I'm not saying the Supreme Court can't be wrong. As I have said, feel free to challenge it in court. Even with the current political makeup of the Supreme Court they refused to hear a case regarding Indiana University's COVID-19 vaccine requirement. Are your hopes really that high regarding the overturning of the prior precedent?

  9. #15689
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    622

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    Would you care to comment on his use of the data in this pdf?
    Table 4 from Denninger's blog post.
    He says
    The data is clear:

    The jabs are destroying existing immunity in that they have negative effectiveness in preventing infection among a wide swath of the population. If you get (or have been) vaccinated and are between 40 and 79 you are more-likely to acquire a Covid-19 infection and thus be able to spread it than an unvaccinated individual.
    This is a problematic claim.
    The NHS report does say that the current infection rates among many age groups is higher among the vaccinated. However, this does not mean it is the vaccine directly causing the increased infection rates. Here is a more(?) likely reason: people after vaccinations go about their lives more close to pre-pandemic times (the message has been, if you're vaccinated, then you're protected against severe illness and hospitalisation). The unvaccinated are being more careful to avoid the virus. Hence the living environment of the two groups is different.

    A similar argument was being made on this thread last year -- that the environment of people in New York was different than that of people in Wichita Falls, and hence the risks were very different.

  10. #15690
    Join Date
    Sep 2021
    Posts
    20

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by gilead View Post
    So because they can't discredit this Warp Speed approved product like they did with IVM and HCQ, suffocate the market instead. It's almost appears like they want people to die. Texas Doctor Warns Florida and Others: Feds May Ration Monoclonal Antibodies | ZeroHedge
    That doctor is making a lot of assumptions regarding what he "thinks" will happen rather than what is actually happening. Regardless, there appears to be an increased demand and shortage of supply regarding this treatment. Rationing is going to happen as the treatment will not be available to everyone. However, if the posters on this board want to continue to narrative that COVID is just the flu and mortality rate isn't that high, why would you care? Shouldn't you just be resting at home after making a quick run to the nearest tractor supply store to pick up your meds anyway?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •