All things Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV)

[Loachman]

Rand Paul tells 'Hannity' he will be asking DOJ to investigate Dr. Fauci | Fox News Video

Kentucky Republican accuses the NIAID director of lying to Congress over whether he funded gain of function research

video.foxnews.com

 

[Remius]

Rand Paul tells 'Hannity' he will be asking DOJ to investigate Dr. Fauci | Fox News Video

Kentucky Republican accuses the NIAID director of lying to Congress over whether he funded gain of function research

video.foxnews.com

Yeah, we used to get crazy folks asking us to investigate suspected alien relatives and North Korean radio signals from their fillings when I was in recruiting. We’d listen but then smiled and told them we’d look into it.

he can ask. I’m not sure the DoJ will oblige.

 

[Loachman]

Yeah, we used to get crazy folks asking us to investigate suspected alien relatives and North Korean radio signals from their fillings when I was in recruiting. We’d listen but then smiled and told them we’d look into it.

So possible/likely perjury is in the same league as "suspected alien relatives and North Korean radio signals from their fillings"?

Fascinating.

he can ask. I’m not sure the DoJ will oblige.

Neither am I, given the current political polarization.

 

[Altair]

Dude, you and others like-minded keep voting for the nanny state that nannies with…yup…your money!

#shouldntbesurprised

While this belongs in another thread, I voted for a party that decided that it wasn't up to the state whether someone smoked relatively harmless weed, as opposed to the party that was all for continuing to punish those who did.

Classic Liberalism

 

[Loachman]

As one who owns relatively harmless firearms, I am not supportive of that choice.

 

[Good2Golf]

While this belongs in another thread, I voted for a party that decided that it wasn't up to the state whether someone smoked relatively harmless weed, as opposed to the party that was all for continuing to punish those who did.

Classic Liberalism

But they also Nanny other parts of your life. How are you reconciling getting the benefit of trouble-free pot with the negative actions as them as Vacci-Nannies?

 

[mariomike]

Yeah, we used to get crazy folks asking us to investigate suspected alien relatives and North Korean radio signals from their fillings when I was in recruiting. We’d listen but then smiled and told them we’d look into it.

Right. As a kid I saw other kids in leg braces crippled with polio. I grew up with a profound respect for medical science. Dr. Salk was a hero to me.

I guess like Drs. Banting and Best were heroes to a generation before.

Later, as an adult, lifting polio victims, what was left of them, out of their iron lungs in family living rooms I thought, "There but for the grace of God go I."

Diptheria, Scarlet Fever, Whooping Cough, Mastoid scars. You don't see that much anymore.

Some people seem to get a kick out of mocking medical scientists trying to save lives. Force them to get security protection.

That is something I will never understand.

 

[Mick]

You may not be so willing to trash the rights of others once somebody has done that to you.

These vaccines as still experimental. They are still under Emergency Use Authorization (in the US) and not fully approved.

"An Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) in the United States is an authorization granted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under sections of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as added to and amended by various Acts of Congress, including by the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act of 2013 (PAHPRA), as codified by 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3, to allow the use of a drug prior to approval. It does not constitute approval of the drug in the full statutory meaning of the term, but instead authorizes FDA to facilitate availability of an unapproved product, or an unapproved use of an approved product, during a declared state of emergency from one of several agencies or of a "material threat" by the Secretary of Homeland Security." (Wikipedia)

These vaccines also come with risks. They are neither 100% effective nor 100% safe. A relatively small number of people have suffered significant and lengthy injuries from them. People are entitled to make their own medical decisions in a (supposedly) free society - at least until Quirky I assumes the Maple Throne.

I've seen a few references to COVID vaccines' experimental status (specifically the FDA designation).

Since asking the question on here a few days ago, I've been trying to find more info on the Canadian COVID vaccine approval process, and specifically, how it differs from the conventional process.

Here's a decent a general overview, with a few links to other pertinent Canadian info:

Health Canada’s regulatory response to COVID-19: Access to health products - Canada.ca

As part of the government’s broad response to the pandemic, Health Canada introduced innovative and agile regulatory measures. These measures expedite the regulatory review of COVID-19 health products without compromising safety, efficacy and quality standards.

www.canada.ca

As to your point regarding efficacy and safety, is any vaccine 100% safe and 100% effective?

I'm not in the medical field, but it has been my understanding that any vaccine, whether experimental or not, has the potential to cause varying degrees of injury or sickness.

I agree, though, that people must be able to choose. But that decision must take into account all personal consequences of being in the outlier category, whether those consequences are medical, social, or economic in nature.

 

[FJAG]

As one who owns relatively harmless firearms, I am not supportive of that choice.

Your firearm is inherently harmful and probably deadly. The legal presumption is that as its lawful owner you are harmless and will keep it from harming others.

I find the government's classification of firearms into harmless or harmful categories as almost entirely arbitrary.

 

[Good2Golf]

Yes, some firearms could move into the same category as automobiles; i.e. ‘harmful’

 

[Loachman]

Your firearm is inherently harmful and probably deadly. The legal presumption is that as its lawful owner you are harmless and will keep it from harming others.

No, they're not.

Left alone, they are completely incapable of causing harm - just like any other inanimate object.

I do not have to "keep it from harming others", as it/they simply cannot do so.

Regardless of the "legal presumption", 'tis the human operator who has or does not have the capability for causing harm.

The firearm is a tool. A hammer cannot bang in nails by itself.

That is the fallacy behind all "gun control" laws, and the reason why they all fail.

I find the government's classification of firearms into harmless or harmful categories as almost entirely arbitrary.

Completely arbitrary.

There are no good guns or bad guns (assuming proper design and manufacture) - just good operators and bad operators.

 

[FJAG]

...

As to your point regarding efficacy and safety, is any vaccine 100% safe and 100% effective?

I'm not in the medical field, but it has been my understanding that any vaccine, whether experimental or not, has the potential to cause varying degrees of injury or sickness.

I agree, though, that people must be able to choose. But that decision must take into account all personal consequences of being in the outlier category, whether those consequences are medical, social, or economic in nature.

The problem with your argument is in the words "persona; consequences" because you are ignoring consequences to others.

It's like when a thief decides to steal from someone else then he must consider his "persona; consequences" which include going to jail but he does not consider the consequences that accrue to the person he steals from in the first place.

We make criminal law for the public good so that when someone makes a poor decision and decides to steal then we will consider the victim and ensure that there will be consequences which will help protect society.

We make public health laws for the same reason; to protect society in general from persons who are a public health risk and who make poor public health choices.

I'm not about to get into the argument about whether Covid is of such a nature that we need to send people who have it into quarantine on an island in the Pacific because, like you, I'm not in the medical field. On the other hand, I'm of the view that the medical experts who do know, and the public officials that we have elected for the very purpose of ensuring our public safety and good government, ought to be the ones deciding what is for the benefit of all of our society in these circumstances and not leave that decision to random people browsing the internet looking for loopholes.

 

[Loachman]

As to your point regarding efficacy and safety, is any vaccine 100% safe and 100% effective?

No.

And I've never had a problem with past vaccines, and, as mariomike has mentioned, have seen the results of diseases now virtually extinct.

I've never had one that was experimental - and there are often/generally good reasons for not being a guineapig - though. A lot of doctors seem to be questioning these ones. We'll see what the long-term effects are in time.

I don't bother with influenza vaccines, by the way. I simply don't see any real benefit to them in my case, and have faith in my immune system.

 

[lenaitch]

The chief problem with our system is one of delivery. We have infinite demand, and too many people are too eager to come to ER for even the most minor issues, when they could see their own MD or go to a walk-in clinic. Secondly, there are lots of folks with no sick benefits, and if they take time off for medical reasons, they don't get paid. Therefore, they tend to show up in ER after dinner, creating a large backlog of cases to attend, creating undue stress on the system. We also live in an era of instant gratification. People are unwilling to wait for an appointment, when they can come to ER and have their issue dealt with now.

If we made improvements to primary care - like co-locating a walk-in clinic beside an ER for example, perhaps costs would come down, and outcomes would go up. For example, it costs the system about $700 for you to be triaged at ER, for your seasonal cold. The base cost to the system for a WIC or family MD for the same visit is about $45.

IF they have a family doctor or IF there is a walk-in clinic, both of which are a challenge in many communities. Agree with the lack of sick days for many. I often wish to see an ER nurse tell somebody 'you have a cold, go away', but all they can do is triage them into a long wait, which many will still sit for.

 

[Loachman]

It's like when a thief decides to steal from someone else then he must consider his "persona; consequences" which include going to jail but he does not consider the consequences that accrue to the person he steals from in the first place.

We make criminal law for the public good so that when someone makes a poor decision and decides to steal then we will consider the victim and ensure that there will be consequences which will help protect society.

Theft is an ancient and universally-recognized real and deliberate crime. It is not equivalent.

Spitting or deliberately coughing on somebody while infected would be a real and deliberate crime.
I'm not about to get into the argument about whether Covid is of such a nature that we need to send people who have it into quarantine on an island in the Pacific because, like you, I'm not in the medical field.

We make public health laws for the same reason; to protect society in general from persons who are a public health risk and who make poor public health choices.

I'm not about to get into the argument about whether Covid is of such a nature that we need to send people who have it into quarantine on an island in the Pacific

There is a humongous difference between quarantining sick people and quarantining healthy people as we have been doing. That has not been seen to have any benefit, yet has caused many problems that will continue to haunt us for many years to come.

On the other hand, I'm of the view that the medical experts who do know, and the public officials that we have elected for the very purpose of ensuring our public safety and good government, ought to be the ones deciding what is for the benefit of all of our society in these circumstances and not leave that decision to random people browsing the internet looking for loopholes.

I most vehemently disagree, having seen their all-over-the-place, flip-flop-and-flip-again, illogical, unproven, inconsistent, and often destructive decrees.

 

[FJAG]

No, they're not.

Left alone, they are completely incapable of causing harm - just like any other inanimate object.

I do not have to "keep it from harming others", as it/they simply cannot do so.

Regardless of the "legal presumption", 'tis the human operator who has or does not have the capability for causing harm.

The firearm is a tool. A hammer cannot bang in nails by itself.

That is the fallacy behind all "gun control" laws, and the reason why they all fail.



Completely arbitrary.

There are no good guns or bad guns (assuming proper design and manufacture) - just good operators and bad operators.

I used the word "inherently" for a reason. Your firearm is designed for the purpose of firing a projectile at a high velocity so that it causes damage or harm to whatever it hits. That's inherently harmful.

Personally I think that most of our gun laws are wrongheaded but I certainly believe that we need to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and those who do not have a capacity to use them safely. I also tend to support five-round magazine capacities - arbitrary yes but reasonable. I'm also not fond of full-automatic weapons in the hands of the public even after a family member used to legally own one.

So generally I'm on the side of the collectors, the farmers, the hunters.

So forgive me for saying so, but the argument that a gun is just a tool like a hammer, and completely harmless while it rests on a table as an inanimate object, is why you are failing to convince the public of your cause. What they see is the potential for very serious harm that it can bring both accidentally and if used on purpose to cause harm and very little in the way of cogent arguments to keep them around.

The anti-gun lobby is not as naïve as you think they are. They just don't buy your arguments.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I used the word "inherently" for a reason. Your firearm is designed for the purpose of firing a projectile at a high velocity so that it causes damage or harm to whatever it hits. That's inherently harmful.

Personally I think that most of our gun laws are wrongheaded but I certainly believe that we need to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and those who do not have a capacity to use them safely. I also tend to support five-round magazine capacities - arbitrary yes but reasonable. I'm also not fond of full-automatic weapons in the hands of the public even after a family member used to legally own one.

Like the boss of CANSOFCOM?

Too soon?

 

[Altair]

But they also Nanny other parts of your life. How are you reconciling getting the benefit of trouble-free pot with the negative actions as them as Vacci-Nannies?

The provinces are the vacci nannies

 

[OceanBonfire]

Another confirmation these two are effective against the Delta variant:

Two doses of Pfizer, AstraZeneca shots effective against Delta variant: study

Two doses of Pfizer (PFE.N) or AstraZeneca's (AZN.L) COVID-19 vaccine are nearly as effective against the highly transmissible Delta coronavirus variant as they are against the previously dominant Alpha variant, a study published on Wednesday showed.

www.reuters.com

Why The Delta Variant Is Hyper-Contagious: A New Study Sheds Light

New research from China suggests people infected with the delta variant have, on average, about 1,000 times more virus in their respiratory tracts than those infected with the original strain.

www.npr.org

 

[Mick]

The problem with your argument is in the words "persona; consequences" because you are ignoring consequences to others.

It's like when a thief decides to steal from someone else then he must consider his "persona; consequences" which include going to jail but he does not consider the consequences that accrue to the person he steals from in the first place.

We make criminal law for the public good so that when someone makes a poor decision and decides to steal then we will consider the victim and ensure that there will be consequences which will help protect society.

We make public health laws for the same reason; to protect society in general from persons who are a public health risk and who make poor public health choices.

I'm not about to get into the argument about whether Covid is of such a nature that we need to send people who have it into quarantine on an island in the Pacific because, like you, I'm not in the medical field. On the other hand, I'm of the view that the medical experts who do know, and the public officials that we have elected for the very purpose of ensuring our public safety and good government, ought to be the ones deciding what is for the benefit of all of our society in these circumstances and not leave that decision to random people browsing the internet looking for loopholes.

The point I'm trying to make is, I'm supportive of a person's freedom to choose whether or not they receive a vaccine. I'm equally supportive of governments', employers', and society at large's freedom to do what is necessary to protect people, whether that is restricting services, changing employment status, etc.

A person can choose to not get vaccinated, but that person will experience personal consequences as governments, employers, society protect the healthcare system, workforce, general population.