COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events - Page 1570

starting strength gym
Page 1570 of 1665 FirstFirst ... 57010701470152015601568156915701571157215801620 ... LastLast
Results 15,691 to 15,700 of 16645

Thread: COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

  1. #15691
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    622

    Default

    • starting strength seminar december 2021
    • starting strength seminar february 2022
    • starting strength seminar april 2022
    From MSM news, one might get the impression hospitals are being overwhelmed with Covid patients.

    Quantitative data from Access Denied

    About 25% of inpatient beds.
    About 50% of ICU.

  2. #15692
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Garage of GainzZz
    Posts
    2,640

    Default

    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
    Yes, but most importantly, they want to be right.

  3. #15693
    Join Date
    Oct 2020
    Location
    Finger Lakes, NY
    Posts
    1

    Default

    I've been following this thread since the beginning but finally feel compelled to add my two cents. How interesting when someone, "Mr. Young," feels compelled to invest time posting wordy nonsense and accusing others of laziness while citing Jacobson to imply that our present situation with vaccine mandates isn't absolute, tyrannical bullshit. Jacobson involved a legislative act - a Massachusetts state law - obviously to anyone who has read it, or better yet understood it, distinguishable from Biden's unconstitutional use of an executive order to attempt to enforce his mandate. For what it's worth, Jacobson was subjected to a $5 fine for his refusal to be vaccinated.

    Biden knows his order is illegal (not to mention ineffective even if it was legal) and that the courts will find it so, but when the inevitable winter wave of cases occurs he will be able to blame the courts for interfering with his attempt to "fix things." His administration exists solely to point the finger elsewhere for its failures.

    Also, and though it's not directly relevant to this specific issue, the argument that the law is "settled" is equally as foolish as the argument that science is ever "settled." Both continue to evolve, though the law does so more slowly. If the law was actually settled here, it would be settled in favor of the executive branch lacking powers assigned to the legislature.

  4. #15694
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    142

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Satch12879 View Post
    It’s all legal. They want no reasonable liability in case anything happens.

    But how would you even get here? Italy doesn’t have an airline and none of the carriers are going there now.
    I was just checking to see if anything changed. It just shocks me to see so much incoherence in a set of rules.
    You make the vaccinated ones do two tests, which means admitting that they can get Sars2 and spread it. BUT they don't need to isolate, even if both tests come back positive.
    If you are unvaccinated but both your tests come back negative, you still have to isolate for 7 days.
    This goes against all logic.
    It's obviously a punishment vs. a reward

  5. #15695
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    86

    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. I personally think the same should be said for those who refuse to be vaccinated for COVID.

    George, I think this is more than just about Covid. Why mandate a vaccine (or whatever it is) for something with such a high survival rate ? Why not check if i have antibodies first before mandating that i get vaccinated. Why not check that i am negative first before not allowing me to enter a business. What is the danger of me, unvaccinated, entering a room with vaccinated people ? Why not mandate the exact technical requirement for mask type if they actually work. Why not actually protect just the vulnerable and let the rest get on with it. "They" are pushing for all to argue as you are arguing, that's how they will win. They need puppets and unfortunately 90% of the world are puppets. But hey, i'm just a dumb ass, what do i know, i didn't go very far in school.

  6. #15696
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    408

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Grantham View Post
    No thanks. Just posting to fill in gaps that might exist. People can draw their own conclusions.
    I find this odd. You’ve managed to comment on numerous other studies on this thread.

    That’s not a slag, it’s an observation.

  7. #15697
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    929

  8. #15698
    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    Posts
    4

    Default

    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.
    Jacobson did not "rule that you don't have the freedom to place other people at risk." Instead, the court in Jacobson held that a state legislature is authorized to enact mandatory vaccination laws as part of its police power. In our federalist system of government, the police power belongs to the states - not the federal government.

    Not only is the new mandate outside the scope of the federal government's power, it was also enacted by Presidential fiat rather than through duly enacted legislation. In our system of government, the legislature makes the laws, not the executive branch.

    There are federalism and separation of powers issues here that were not present in the Jacobsen case or the Indiana University case.

  9. #15699
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    929

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by quagmire View Post
    The unvaccinated are being more careful to avoid the virus. Hence the living environment of the two groups is different.
    Bullshit, many of the unvaccinated have had their head screwed on straight from the beginning or not long after and have lived their lives normally just like it was prior to this fiascodemic.

  10. #15700
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    375

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    I agree with Ioannidis' tone, but this part suggests he hasn't been paying attention:

    The pandemic led seemingly overnight to a scary new form of scientific universalism. Everyone did COVID-19 science or commented on it. By August 2021, 330,000 scientific papers were published on COVID-19, involving roughly a million different authors. An analysis showed that scientists from every single one of the 174 disciplines that comprise what we know as science has published on COVID-19. By the end of 2020, only automobile engineering didn’t have scientists publishing on COVID-19. By early 2021, the automobile engineers had their say, too.

    At first sight, this was an unprecedented mobilization of interdisciplinary talent. However, most of this work was of low quality, often wrong, and sometimes highly misleading. Many people without subject-matter technical expertise became experts overnight, emphatically saving the world.
    Yes, there was a lot of grant chasing. But this effort was vitally important, because the designated experts - epidemiologists in particular - were muzzled, captured, biased, lazy, incompetent, and/or simply overwhelmed. Does Ioannidis wish all our predictions came from Neil Ferguson?

    As these spurious experts multiplied, evidence-based approaches—like randomized trials and collection of more accurate, unbiased data—were frequently dismissed as inappropriate, too slow, and harmful. The disdain for reliable study designs was even celebrated.
    Expensive, late, poorly-configured, underpowered RCTs continue to be harmful.

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
  •