cordycord

iTrader: (2)

I much prefer CNN, but most of their staff was fired or in jail for sexual assault.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Huh?

I specifically said that the BLM protests were bad. Unless you are using a definition of the word "bad" which differs greatly from mine, that means that I agree with you.

(I now remember that "bad" meant "good" in the 1980s. I am not using the word in that sense.)



Public support is in fact all that matters, insofar as the thought process of politicians. Public support is what leads to election / re-election.

That being said, public support does not automatically provide legitimacy for a movement. To illustrate this point, I would note that in the US, there was once widespread public support for racial segregation, prohibition, the interment of US citizens of Japanese ancestry, wars in in Iraq and Afghanistan, and so on.

Socals14

Beyond just re-election - some political thinkers argue that public opinion polling is actually a key component of democracy - see the following:

https://www.vanderbilt.edu/unity/202...st-some-polls/

Also, I think you are confusing "legitimacy" with morally right...In fact, I would argue public opinion was a component of the justification for those practices and laws - however wrong or morally outrageous.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Interesting article.

The part where they start delving into 2020 in particular seems to suggest a question without directly addressing it. To wit: Amongst those who did vote in the 2020 Presidential election, how many of them were actually educated about, and based their voting decision upon, an actual platform or issue? As a purely anecdotal observation, it seems to me that a much larger-than-usual number of voters were simply casting their ballot against a certain candidate based upon their personal perception of the candidate himself, rather than for any given issue.





So, if you'll forgive me delving into reductio ad absurdum territory, you would say that a government elected by a majority of the people, on a platform of "we need to overturn the bill of rights and throw everyone who doesn't agree with us into concentration camps" is a legitimate government?

Because this is where the ideal notion of a pure democracy starts to break down a bit. Just as I wouldn't say that it's a legitimate exercise of my own liberty for me to go out and push someone in front of a bus because I disagree with their political beliefs, I likewise don't feel that a simple majority of voters electing a government on the promise to use the force of the state to punish innocent people based on their own personal beliefs is a legitimate exercise of power.

Socals14

You've heard the phrase "legal does not equal moral", right? We may legitimately elect a strong man, or even a mad man, and there exists, however improbable, legitimate means by which a mad man may strip people of their rights. The fact that we see such attempts as morally objectionable might just be the reason such attempts are not successful.

You pushing someone to their death could be legitimate - justified legally - if the circumstances permit it.

wherestheboost

iTrader: (-1)

In the case of the past 2 years, or many more years before that - illegality is only illegal if the law is enforced. A mandate equals a law if the people it mandates do not fight the illegitimacy of said mandate. At this rate, the govt can just literally say "yeah, we're going to do this - and no one is going to do anything about it." And here we are!

Or they change their "mandates" just as they see the public disregard it enough and add in the response "see, we give rights back - just like we said we would."

good2go

iTrader: (2)

And here I thought it was "because the science changed".

Socals14

That assumes they took "rights" away in the first place. Our rights limit our freedom.

stratosteve

iTrader: (1)

SOTU bingo anyone?

wherestheboost

iTrader: (-1)

When your (our) "governor" pushes mandates, and then proceeds not to follow them (among other things)...... there's a word for that. Sometimes sounds like a transmission. Hmm... What's that word again?

On jabs (among other things), it's simple. Where there's risk, there must be choice. You have every right to not be forced to be part of an experiment to live your daily life.

Socals14

You won't see me disagree regarding our Gov...that was a real bonehead move.

I disagree on your second point. If we're talking sky diving, maybe...but a communicable disease? I think that is where our rights limit our freedom. Sure...you don't mind getting sick, or may even be low risk, but the chap next to you may not be. Also, it doesn't matter if the vaccine doesn't limit the spread...because if you do get sick and clog up the ER, then the next chap who needs a bed may get shorted. Rights limit freedom.

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

How many years can one extend an "emergency?" Especially given that the VAST bulk of the population is waking around, ignoring your edicts? Seems kinda dumb.

As for the jabs, the data from England showed that over 70% of the hospitalizations had at least one jab. It's nonsense to think that the jab does much beneficial, especially for anyone under 65. I won't even discuss the CDC hiding crucial data from us, or the fact that Pfizer's own initial study on juvenile vaccinations showed that they caused more harm than good.

Bottom line--the pro-vax pro-mask arguments are political, just like the mask mandates magically coming down right before SOTU.

Socals14

Post up some links for these claims. The UK claim seems dubious...I have not seen anything close to that in the US or CA data. Second, Pfizers Phase III trial in juveniles was 100% effective with low risk harm profile. So please provide some links.

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

Spend a few hours on this thread instead. It's all here, and more.

edit--and again, the CDC is hiding information while England has compiled complete country-wide information. And since they were experiencing the variants before the USA (like Israel), it's been vital information.

Socals14

Two thoughts - I work with the CDC and they are not "hiding" data. That is absurd. Second, I did find data from the UK - you know what they say about lies, damn lies and statistics? You either have been misinformed (or shared misinformation), or genuinely don't understand the epidemiology (which is 100% understandable) .

https://www.health-ni.gov.uk/sites/d...eeks-03-06.pdf

In this report for Northern Ireland you notice a couple of things - the proportion of hospitalized patients who are vaccinated increases in this report, especially in the first six weeks of the year. You could argue that "proves" the vaccines don't work - if you wanted to mislead people. What is ignored are the rate ratios for the likelihood of being hospitalized between the two groups (which suggest you are more likely to be hospitalized if unvaccinated) and the overall rate per 100,000 of admissions for each group. How can this be?

It's a magnitude issue - note that vaccine uptake is fairly good among some groups (> 90%). When you simply have "more people" walking around vaccinated it is very possible break-through infections leading to hospitalizations will out number unvaccinated hospitalizations - the difference in the size of the populations drive the admissions proportions. However, the rate ratios and the rate per 100,000 take the base populations of each group into account, and the conclusions flips. The base populations of unvaccinated are smaller YET there is a greater proportion of unvaccinated people in that pool that require hospitalization. I am sure the same is true for the wider UK. We haven't seen this yet in the US because our vaccine uptake is not as good.

I work as an epidemiologist, so I may have an unfair advantage.

wherestheboost

iTrader: (-1)

Just remember... it was get jabbed so... that you don't get it, don't spread it, and on very rare occasions get hospitalized or die.

***some time passes

Get jabbed, but even on the rare occasion you do get it, you won't spread it.

***more time passes

Get jabbed; you'll probably get it, you might spread it, but still no hospitalizations or death

***even more time passes

Get jabbed; you can get it and spread it like the unjabbed, but minimal hospitalizations or death

***

Get jabbed.

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

It's funny because that study that came out comparing New York and California that effectively showed there was negligible difference in getting COVID again and spreading it - when comparing someone jabbed and unjabbed that already had COVID.

But beyond all of this - you can go back to see it... but if I ran my scientific experiments like these guys did - I'd be fired. That is, unless I was guaranteed that I wouldn't be fired, granted immunity, especially if I make it seem like everything is fine.

Between the lack of a control group, lack of long term studies (5-12 year old's study was ~2 months long before deemed "yeah it's super safe," and the booster studies were just grandfathered in with no time studies), and then just the general mass censorship of questioning said vaccines and doing risk analysis. It isn't about your neighbor. This is about having the choice to be put into an experiment. That's a hard no. Do you do chemo to make sure all cancer patients are safe? Do we make everyone do chemo to protect the ill? The MOMENT the data came out that you could get it AND spread it - that should have been the CLEAR end of mandates. Because at that point, it was reduced to "it only takes care of you." As far as the next hospital bed being unavailable... we need to get rid of drinking alcohol, driving cars, eating bad food, not exercising, because last I checked - those take up room too. And to also repeat, they weren't overrun. And also to repeat - notice they never compare to historical flu season impacts on hospital beds.

tl;dr - bad scientific practices, bad censorship, no one has the right to push you into an experiment - let alone leverage your life.

Socals14

It was never "you won't get it"...not sure where you are getting that from. It was ALWAYS about avoiding hospitalization and death. I mean, just go look at the Pfizer studies - the "95%" efficacy was always about hospitalization and death - NOT infection. Second, if you ran your experiments like clinical trials? Bit to hand wavy to me without specifics. My spouse was in the Moderna trial - and guess what? She was in the placebo control group. So, you either don't understand clinical trials or you're just, again, waving your hands. The comparison to chemo is a complete false equivalence - vaccines are a primary prevention strategy whereas chemo is tertiary or secondary at best. They are not comparable. Finally, I just don't see your reasoning with respect to the mandates. The mandates had multiple goals. Mandates for vaccination were aimed at reducing hospitalization and death - and the data CLEARY shows that occurred. Masks, distancing, etc., were about limiting spread.

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

I literally googled "cdc hiding data"

The CDC — which is withholding information — has a hidden agenda

The fact is that England doesn't need to deal with 50 different states, each with their own systems. They also aren't dealing with a system where a car crash victim that tests positive for Covid gets listed as a Covid death. Extremely faulty data, in other words. The English data is more uniform than the U.S., and more complete. The UK data has been consistent with other findings in other countries as well, including Israel.

If you do work for the CDC, then you also know the VAERS data as well. More deadly than all other vaccines combined, and counting.

Socals14

Yea...VAERS - haha - the most reported issues? Headache and a sore arm - REAL deadly.

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

CDC Panel Backs Moderna ‘Spikevax’ for 18 and Older, as COVID Vaccine Injuries Continue to Rise, VAERS Data Show

Sore arm, 23k dead, myocarditis, pericarditis, miscarriages....whatever. Even with under-reported VAERS system, more dead than all other vaccines combined...by far.

"VAERS data released Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention included a total of 1,088,560 reports of adverse events from all age groups following COVID vaccines, including 23,149 deaths and 183,311 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020, and Jan. 28, 2022."

Somehow I'm not surprised that you don't know this, Mr. CDC.

And since we're dealing with experimental vaccines, the public really isn't clued in that the drug companies have sent out batches with higher doses, lower doses, and even placebos. The results were enough to create a new website: https://howbadismybatch.com/

Enter your drug maker and batch number to find the results.