Dude, the gubment IS out to get you! And your GUNS! And they feed you flooride in the water to control your mind and let them take your guns!
We're not going to take this CRAP!
Abundance of caution? They said DON'T WEAR MASKS back in March. Just last month they said pregnant women shouldn't get the vaccine, and later said they should, and later said they shouldn't. Which one is it?
You are right that this is not a therapy for those who contracted covid, but why aren't we pushing people to get healthier? Why neither the government nor its medical experts discuss a campaign to improve overall health of the population as an additional route to control the virus? We all know the government regardless of party is basically run by corporate lobbying. There's only ONE public figure currently advocating and campaigning for healthy habits and it's Michelle Obama. NOBODY ELSE!supranihilest wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 10:09 am Which has exactly zero to do with my post. "Get exercise!" is not therapy for someone who has contracted COVID.
I'm glad you asked, because I do in fact have that data too: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/ ... mm7013e3_wsupranihilest wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 11:09 am
I'm not talking about people who are vaccinated dying. What is the risk of vaccinated people still transmitting the virus to those who are not vaccinated? You have all the data I'm sure, let's see it.
TL;DR Fully vaccinated people test PCR positive at ~3% the rate of non-vaccinated. If you aren't PCR+ there is essentially a 0% chance that you can transmit the virus, and even if you are PCR+ it doesn't mean that it is at significant enough viral loads to be infective. This is further confirmed by seeing the infection rate plummet in highly vaccinated countries like Israel and the US.Among 3,950 participants with no previous laboratory documentation of SARS-CoV-2 infection, 2,479 (62.8%) received both recommended mRNA doses and 477 (12.1%) received only one dose of mRNA vaccine.† Among unvaccinated participants, 1.38 SARS-CoV-2 infections were confirmed by reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) per 1,000 person-days.§ In contrast, among fully immunized (≥14 days after second dose) persons, 0.04 infections per 1,000 person-days were reported[my emphasis], and among partially immunized (≥14 days after first dose and before second dose) persons, 0.19 infections per 1,000 person-days were reported. Estimated mRNA vaccine effectiveness for prevention of infection, adjusted for study site, was 90% for full immunization and 80% for partial immunization. These findings indicate that authorized mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are effective for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection, regardless of symptom status, among working-age adults in real-world conditions. COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for all eligible persons.
Yes. Because you can. That was the purpose of the Federal Tort Claims Act. I'm no lawyer, but I imagine people dying or becoming permanently disabled due to a lack of, or excess of, caution during a pandemic could easily fall under the umbrella of government negligence.
I'm fine the with CDC making their best-practices recommendations. They can even suggest that eating cookie dough is a bad idea. I just want the individual liberty to choose my own risk assessment. I didn't vote for anyone in the CDC and I don't want them making up laws like they have for eviction moritoriums (RIP housing market when that expires).Dave B wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 11:51 amYes. Because you can. That was the purpose of the Federal Tort Claims Act. I'm no lawyer, but I imagine people dying or becoming permanently disabled due to a lack of, or excess of, caution during a pandemic could easily fall under the umbrella of government negligence.
That only applies to when YOU were injured by the government. You cant sue for damages just bc you dont agree with the government's policies. If that were the case, at any point in time, about half of the country would be suing the government for damages. You don't need to be a lawyer to apply common sense. But ok, let's all call up a laywer bc the CDC said in March that masks don't help, which it's not true.Dave B wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 11:51 amYes. Because you can. That was the purpose of the Federal Tort Claims Act. I'm no lawyer, but I imagine people dying or becoming permanently disabled due to a lack of, or excess of, caution during a pandemic could easily fall under the umbrella of government negligence.
The CDC is not a political organiziation, of course you didn't vote for anyone there. They also don't make laws, here, learn how the US government works.crossfitter wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 11:55 am I didn't vote for anyone in the CDC and I don't want them making up laws like they have for eviction moritoriums (RIP housing market when that expires).
Useless fear-mongering hyperbole is useless.crossfitter wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 11:55 am Yes, muh rights actually do matter, because the precedent we set for allowing a boot on your face anyone someone is scared is going to live with us long after the pandemic is over. See also: PRISM and the patriot act to "protect" you from terrorists.
Dude, c'mon, at least do a bit of research. A five second google search shows there's already a lawsuit against the fed from SDNY. I'm sure there are others, maybe take a second to question your assumptions rather than argue blindly.ker0uac wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 12:01 pm That only applies to when YOU were injured by the government. You cant sue for damages just bc you dont agree with the government's policies. If that were the case, at any point in time, about half of the country would be suing the government. You don't need to be a lawyer to apply common sense. But ok, let's all call up a laywer bc the CDC said in March that masks don't help, which it's not true.
Uh, huh, yep the CDC still doesn't write laws. An eviction moratorium is not a law. I thought all you guys were constitutional scholars?ker0uac wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 12:11 pm CDC can't make law but that doesn't keep them from trying:
"A federal district court judge in Washington, D.C. recently ruled that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s September 2020 order on evictions was unconstitutional. The main issue in the case is whether Congress gave the CDC the power to enact an eviction moratorium in the Public Health Services Act of 1944. Congress passes laws and the federal agencies implement them. Agencies cannot act outside of the power given to them by Congress."
Yet, that didn't keep liberals from advocating for CDC's overreach:
"Limiting the authority of the CDC to impose an eviction moratorium it finds necessary to curb COVID-19 transmission would also significantly curtail the ability of the CDC to impose other unanticipated measures in response to a future pandemic, no matter what those might be and no matter the severity of the danger some future disease might pose."
https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/ ... th-now-and