Covid Vaccine

[Tibs]

I don't think anyone here is expressing that one immunity is better than the other

Do you have Tim on ignore or something?

 

[SteelerInLebanon]

You shouldn't brag one way or another. The vaccine helps limit your chances of catching it, getting gravely sick or dying from it. It's not foolproof, it's not guaranteed. It gives you a fighting chance.

Maybe you will answer this since Trog won't. What are your fighting chances without the vaccine? Yes the vaccine helps and you can tell me how much more likely whatever I want to you to say what are the reals odds of death if you haven't had the vaccine, not how more anything just flat out what are the odds.

 

[Tibs]

Maybe you will answer this since Trog won't. What are your fighting chances without the vaccine? Yes the vaccine helps and you can tell me how much more likely whatever I want to you to say what are the reals odds of death if you haven't had the vaccine, not how more anything just flat out what are the odds.

I don't know, Lebanon, I'm no doctor or scientist. I do know I've consistently seen 90%+ covid hospitalized patients are unvaccinated. That's enough empirical evidence for me, I don't need 100% assurances regarding anything. That's not how life works.

 

[Tibs]

This is what I think of when I see all the anti-mask, anti-vaccination posts on this board.


The last known picture of the MAGA Anti-Parachuters.

 

[Superman]

Ok then.

nice retort, dumbass

 

[Sarge]

Do you have Tim on ignore or something?

Oh ****, kinda forgot about him. Still, he does have a point at least in regards to the Pfizer vaccine. It is not nearly as effective as it started, and the SCIENCE shows that the Pfizer vaccine is in fact waning, thus the need for a booster. I'll take natural immunity over that, and I think you would too. The human body is an amazing thing, resilient and strong and able to fight off just about anything, including COVID, even in the weakest among us. What stuns me is how your "science" allows you to dismiss that. out of hand.

 

[Superman]

you know, believe what you want. you do anyway. you cannot and will never stop people from believing what they want.

for years, decades even, the federal government was lying to us about UFOs - that UFOs didnt exist.

did that stop people from believing? no, it made them question UFO existence even more.

Just a couple years ago, or even last year, the federal government acknowledged the existence of UFOs.


yes, I know you'll spin this into something else, and thank you for doing that and not seeing the point. Which you wouldn't see if it was on the tip of a cruise missile headed straight between your eyes.


edited for Fibs' snowflake eyes

 

[Sarge]

This is what I think of when I see all the anti-mask, anti-vaccination posts on this board.


The last known picture of the MAGA Anti-Parachuters.

Except they're all wearing parachutes.........

 

[Tibs]

Except they're all wearing parachutes.........

For the sake of the analogy, allow your willing suspension of disbelief to kick in... pretend there's no parachute. You get my drift, lol.

 

[Superman]

For the sake of the analogy, allow your willing suspension of disbelief to kick in... pretend there's no parachute. You get my drift, lol.

Sarge responded to precisely what he saw. He didn't play pretend to keep from hurting your fragile feelings. The fact that you even tried to use such nonsense to convey a point, then admonish someone for not believing precisely what you wanted to believe shows your rambling mindset on this subject.

 

[Steeltime]

The 1st Amendment does not give a person the right to lie. If it did, Tucker Carlson wouldn’t have to give the legal defense of “No reasonable person would take me seriously”.

For the third time, you are the one lying about the decision in the Carlson case. Outright lying because I previously gave you the true facts, The judge correctly found that Carlson was not actually accusing McDougal of the crime of extortion and was simply using hyperbole (that means exaggeration or overstatement, since I know big words are hard for you) to make his point. Here is part of what the judge actually held:

Plaintiff’s understanding focuses only on specific words Mr. Carlson stated, taken entirely out of context of what preceded them and what followed. In particular, Ms. McDougal emphasizes that Mr. Carlson reiterated to his viewers “Remember the facts of the story. These are undisputed,” Am. Compl. ¶ 10, before he went on to state, “Two women approached Donald Trump and threatened to ruin his career and humiliate his family if he doesn’t give them money . . . [F]or whatever reason, Trump caves to it, and he directs Michael Cohen to pay the ransom. Id. But, immediately before these statements, Mr. Carlson laid out that he was “stipulating” to these assertions “for the sake of argument.” See Episode Transcript. And, as the segment continued, Mr. Carlson stated his opinion that Ms. McDougal’s alleged conduct “sounds like a classic case of extortion.” Id. It is true that Mr. Carlson repeatedly asserted that the conduct was extortion during a debate with a guest commentator in which Mr. Carlson also described the payment from Cohen to McDougal as “paying off someone who is extorting you, threatening to make public details of your personal life, if she doesn’t get paid.” See Episode Transcript. But there can be no doubt that Mr. Carlson did so as hyperbole to promote debate on a matter of public concern. As a result, the Court concludes that Mr. Carlson’s statements viewed in context are not factual representations and, therefore, cannot give rise to a claim for defamation. For this reason, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on this ground is granted.

Hogan v. Winder, 762 F.3d 1096, 1108 (10th Cir. 2014) (“[A]ccusations of extortion are a familiar rhetorical device. We all know of colloquial or hyperbolic uses of the term. Although the term has a derogatory meaning when used either way, we cannot assume that the term always refers to a crime or similarly heinous conduct. Like with other words, context matters.”); Small Bus. Bodyguard Inc. v. House of Moxie, Inc., 230 F. Supp. 3d 290, 313 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (“It is hyperbole, just like her exaggerated statement that she was suffering from ‘varying degrees of what many people might view as extortion, manipulation, fraud, and deceit.’ And hyperbole is ‘simply not actionable’ for defamation.” (quoting Gross v. N.Y. Times Co., 82 N.Y.2d 146, 152, 603 N.Y.S.2d 813, 623 N.E.2d 1163 (1993))).

Read the decision, rather than repeating some idiotic blurb you slurped up from Media Matters.

McDougal v. Fox News Network, LLC, No. 1:2019cv11161 - Document 39 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)

McDougal v. Fox News Network, LLC, No. 1:2019cv11161 - Document 39 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) case opinion from the Southern District of New York US Federal District Court

law.justia.com

Second, the 1st amendment most certainly protects "lies" to a significant degree.

Attempts to silence individuals through defamation suits clashes head-on with the First Amendment and nearly two centuries of jurisprudence based squarely on the principle that "the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 377 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring); see also Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (Holmes, J., dissenting) ("I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe…").

The First Amendment is grounded on the fundamental idea that society benefits from a full and free exchange of ideas and opinions. Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 266 (explaining that the First Amendment is designed "to secure the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources.") (internal quotes omitted); Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 488 (1957) ("The fundamental freedom of speech and press have contributed greatly to the development and well-being of our free society and are indispensable to its continued growth.").

Rickert v Washington, a 2007 decision of the Washington Supreme Court, considered whether a political candidate could be punished for telling deliberate lies about her opponent in a political campaign. Voting 5 to 4, the court held that Marilou Rickert, a Green Party candidate for the State Senate, could not be fined for falsely claiming in a campaign brochure that one of her opponents "voted to close a facility for the developmentally challenged." The Court's majority said the state law "naively assumes that the government is capable of correctly and consistently negotiating the thin line between fact and opinion in political speech."

United States v Alvarez (2012) raised the question of whether the First Amendment allowed prosecution of a newly elected member of a California water board who introduced himself to a group of citizen as a 25-year Marine veteran who had been "awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor." Alvarez was prosecuted under the Stolen Valor Act which authorizes imprisonment for anyone who "falsely represents himself or herself...to have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States." The Supreme Court, on a 6 to 3 vote, affirmed the Ninth Circuit decision overturning Alvarez's conviction. Justice Kennedy (joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor) applied strict scrutiny to the law and noted that content-based restrictions on speech were almost always unconstitutional. Justices Breyer and Kagan, concurring, said intermediate scrutiny should apply to false statements, but that the Stolen Valor Act must fall, because it applied too broadly, even to false claims made to family and friends in private, for example.

Does the First Amendment Protect Lying?

Cases, notes, and questions on the issue of whether the Constitution protects lies

law2.umkc.edu

The problem here is that eminently qualified professionals - immunologists, epidemiologists, Ph.D.'s, pharmacological experts - simply disagree with the government narrative.

That's it. And that is the speech most deserving of protection.

And one thing is patently clear - you are unqualified to criticize or challenge expert opinions by immunologists, epidemiologists, Ph.D.'s, and pharmacological experts about the Chinese flu, origins, treatments, the vaccine, etc.

Just as you are patently unqualified to render legal opinions on the 1st Amendment.

Uh, earth being the center of the universe was NOT scientific fact, it was indeed, misinformation.

You are not very bright, are you?

The scientific method is to pose a theory and test it with experimentation and observation. If the theory proves correct under the test, it is deemed a scientific "fact" until later testing and theorizing proves the earlier scientific "fact" wrong, or incomplete, or inaccurate.

That does not make the revised or now-rejected scientific "fact" any less of a fact when it was held to be the prevailing scientific "fact."

 

[Tibs]

Sarge responded to precisely what he saw. He didn't play pretend to keep from hurting your fragile feelings. The fact that you even tried to use such nonsense to convey a point, then admonish someone for not believing precisely what you wanted to believe shows your rambling mindset on this subject.

Nobody *admonished* anyone, you whiny snowflake. Try to get a grip Supe, or I'll have to start calling you Karen. There are adults in the room having a dialogue. Try not to let your soggy panties bunch up so quickly. You got this, man. It's gonna be okay.

 

[Tibs]

Love Psaki, she's the best press secretary we've had in decades.

 

[oneforthebus]

I wonder why no one is tracking how many hospitalized unvaccinated patients have had previous confirmed covid infections. Seems like that would be something we would want to know.

 

[Troglodyte]

But, but… it’s not settled science that bleach wouldn’t work in treating Covid…

 

[oneforthebus]

Here's a study from Italy in which 5 out of 1579 people were reinfected after one year. 1 hospitalized. That seems like a pretty low rate to me but I'm no scientist.

Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 Reinfection 1 Year After Primary Infection in a Population in Lombardy, Italy

This cohort study examines the rate of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection among people in Lombardy, Italy, who previously recovered from COVID-19.

jamanetwork.com

Results
The baseline demographic characteristics are shown in the Table. The median (interquartile range) age of the patients was 59 (40-78) years, but positive cases were older and geographically distributed more in the industrial area of Legnano.

During the follow-up (mean [SD], 280 [41] days) 5 reinfections (0.31%; 95% CI, 0.03%-0.58%) were confirmed in the cohort of 1579 positive patients. Most of these patients were evaluated, treated, and followed in hospitals or dedicated COVID-19 ambulatories.6 Only 1 was hospitalized, and 4 patients had a close relationship (2 patients work in hospitals, 1 patient underwent transfusions every week, and 1 patient retired in a nursing home) with health facilities. The mean (SD) interval between primary infection and reinfection was longer than 230 (90) days.

 

[oneforthebus]

But, but… it’s not settled science that bleach wouldn’t work in treating Covid…

I'm not going to argue that Trump's comments weren't stupid, but he never suggested that anyone should inject bleach.

 

[Tibs]

I'm not going to argue that Trump's comments weren't stupid, but he never suggested that anyone should inject bleach.

Don't let the syntax fool you. He may not have used the word *bleach* specifically. He used *disinfectant.* Not sure that changes the gist of it.

 

[oneforthebus]

Don't let the syntax fool you. He may not have used the word *bleach* specifically. He used *disinfectant.* Not sure that changes the gist of it.

Where's the part where he suggested to people that they should inject themselves with anything? He was talking to Dr. Birx about the possibility of studying these ideas. He never told the general public they should go ahead and try it. He also said nothing about bleach.

 

[oneforthebus]

He and the administration also played a large part in developing these vaccines. This idea that his one stupid comment derailed the fight against covid and that he did nothing to help slow it is just factually wrong and stupid.

 

[Tibs]

Where's the part where he suggested to people that they should inject themselves with anything? He was talking to Dr. Birx about the possibility of studying these ideas. He never told the general public they should go ahead and try it. He also said nothing about bleach.

Tell us why folks were running around buying up all the bleach from the shelves, to the point Clorox and other manufacturers had to put out multiple warnings about it?

 

[Tibs]

He and the administration also played a large part in developing these vaccines.

This is true, and it was good to see vaccine development ramp-up through a massive, international effort. Thankfully, Trump constantly whitewashing and minimizing Covid didn't get in the way of their development. At least he had enough sense to not derail the effort.

 

[Booted]

Tell us why folks were running around buying up all the bleach from the shelves, to the point Clorox and other manufacturers had to put out multiple warnings about it?

To sanitize their homes? Naw they probably were chugging it by the gallon.

 

[fedderone]

Tell us why folks were running around buying up all the bleach from the shelves, to the point Clorox and other manufacturers had to put out multiple warnings about it?

Oooh, I’ll play!
Provide the video/quote where Trump told people to inject themselves with toilet paper.
Because people were running and buying up all the toilet paper, too.
Surely that was because of Trump, too.

The bleach/disinfectants weren’t being all bought up because of the fear mongering that told everyone it stayed on surfaces for days on end, was it?

 

[Steeltime]

Where's the part where he suggested to people that they should inject themselves with anything? He was talking to Dr. Birx about the possibility of studying these ideas. He never told the general public they should go ahead and try it. He also said nothing about bleach.

Don't confuse them with facts. They read it on Media Matters a year ago and nothing will convince them otherwise.

Tell us why folks were running around buying up all the bleach from the shelves, to the point Clorox and other manufacturers had to put out multiple warnings about it?

Are you pretending to be this stupid? Good God, for the people in Budapest, I hope so.

The virus that causes COVID-19 can land on surfaces. It’s possible for people to become infected if they touch those surfaces and then touch their nose, mouth, or eyes. In most situations, the risk of infection from touching a surface is low. The most reliable way to prevent infection from surfaces is to regularly wash hands or use hand sanitizer.
Cleaning and disinfecting surfaces can also reduce the risk of infection.
Always follow standard practices and appropriate regulations specific to your type of facility for minimum standards for cleaning and disinfection. This guidance is indicated for buildings in community settings and is not intended for healthcare settings or for other facilities where specific regulations or practices for cleaning and disinfection may apply. Additionally, this guidance only applies to cleaning and disinfection practices to prevent the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19. It does not apply to any cleaning or disinfection needed to prevent the spread of other germs.

When to Clean and When to Disinfect​

Cleaning with products containing soap or detergent reduces germs on surfaces by removing contaminants and decreases risk of infection from surfaces.
When no people with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 are known to have been in a space, cleaning once a day is usually enough to sufficiently remove virus that may be on surfaces and help maintain a healthy facility. Disinfecting (using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s List N disinfectants kills any remaining germs on surfaces, which further reduces any risk of spreading infection.

Community, Work, and School

Actions that communities can take to slow the spread of COVID-19.

www.cdc.gov