Nicki Minaj's Vaccine Hesitancy Tweets Show Value of Persuasion Over Federal Mandates

Persuading vaccine objectors is a much better approach than imposing coercive top-down mandates.


Earlier this week, rapper Nicki Minaj tweeted a harrowing and improbable tale about her cousin's friend's COVID vaccine side effects. "My cousin in Trinidad won't get the vaccine cuz his friend got it & became impotent. His testicles became swollen. His friend was weeks away from getting married, now the girl called off the wedding. So just pray on it & make sure you're comfortable with ur decision, not bullied," she wrote.

"They want you to get vaccinated for the Met. if I get vaccinated it won't [sic] for the Met. It'll be once I feel I've done enough research. I'm working on that now," she added, later saying she was reluctant to travel for the Met Gala due to having a young child at home and that she'll probably end up having to get vaccinated to go on tour:

Her tweets evoked a response from Trinidadian health authorities, who refuted the claim that vaccines could cause swollen balls; a response from the White House, which offered to call Minaj to discuss the safety of COVID-19 vaccines; and dual monologues from MSNBC's Joy Reid and Fox's Tucker Carlson expressing their respective disappointment and elation at her stance.

Though Minaj is all over the place with her objections to personally getting vaccinated and choosing not to attend the Met Gala, she's right to emphasize the importance of allowing adults to make their own choices free from coercive, top-down government measures—and the importance of allowing people to make their own private medical decisions on their own timelines.

If Minaj does ultimately choose to get vaccinated, as she indicates is likely, it will be because the prospect of losing out on the money and joy reaped by touring is a price she's decided she is not willing to pay. But she's the one who can judge those trade-offs for herself, and the people she does business with are the ones who can decide how much risk of viral spread they're willing to accept in venues, recording studios, and the like.

Though the White House obviously won't offer to get on the phone with every American who has vaccine concerns—just those who have 157 million Instagram followers—their response to the testicle-deformation kerfuffle indicates that they still view persuasion as a useful tactic; perhaps they should've even tried persuasion for longer, staving off the impulse to impose federal mandates and incur the highly predictable backlash. For people whose vaccine hesitancy is rooted in distrust of the federal government, coercive measures may be effective in the short term, but are likely to squander trust in the long run (while incentivizing some audacious people to use fakes to skirt the rules).

People who have the administration's ear, such as CNN medical analyst Leana Wen, have gone so far as to suggest that unvaccinated people should be barred from commercial air travel. In some cities, your pre-teen or teen could be required to get vaccinated in order to attend mandatory schooling; in others, restaurants, bars, movie theaters, art museums, and indoor sporting events are walled off from unvaccinated people by order of the government. A better strategy—one which would have recognized limits on executive authority—could have been to let private businesses decide for themselves which policies to enact for workers and customers, as many were already doing, and to let individuals like Minaj decide when or if the scale tips toward vaccination on their own.

NEXT: The California Recall Shows It's Fine to Not Vote For Candidates You Don't Support

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. "My cousin in Trinidad won't get the vaccine cuz his friend got it & became impotent."

    You misspelled "important" you dumb dummy.

    1. You need to respect me because I'm very impotent.

      1. Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee-it. Mufukr.

        1. Yeah that's the screetch we know and taunt.

            1. Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family & relatives by doing jobs that only require you to have a computer and an internet K access and you can have that at your home. Hax Start bringing up to $65,000 to $70,000 a month. I’ve started this job and earn a handsome income and now I am exchanging it with you, so you can do it too.

              Here is I started.…………… VISIT HERE

              1. Can you have some spare time to sit back in your chair having your laptop with you and making some money online for some interesting online work said Jenny Francis in the party last nightsee.more what is for you there to increase your pocket money……..........
                HERE ===))> JOBS APP

              2. I made over $700 per day using my mobile in part time. I recently got my 5th paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily.GHn simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing.

                Try now.............. Pays24

        2. Almost forgot. Fuck Tulpa!

          1. Not with my dick you're not!

            1. Wow... instead of decrying an authoritarian president and actually attacking those calling him out... you focus your attention on other posters who aren't as far left as you. Odd avenue to take. Working out great for sarc.

              1. It’s much more important for the cool kids to dump on literally anybody else.

                1. Find USA Online Jobs (800$-95000$ Weekly) safe and secure! Easy Acces To Information. Simple in use. All the Answers. Multiple sources combined.GHj Fast and trusted. Discover us now! Easy & Fast, 99% Match. ..

                  Here............ Pays24

              2. I am making a good salary online from home.I’ve made 97,999 dollar’s so for last 5 months working online and I’m a full time student.TDf I’m using an online business opportunity I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

                For more detail ................ VISIT HERE

            2. I would not do that to you.

              Besides, there is a very good chance Tulpa is an algorithm, not a person.

              1. Bot is he the only?

                1. Yoda talk to puns are you adding?

              2. No. Tulpa is a person. Recognized by using a new first and last name while spouting personal bullshit. I figure it's Lewis Engberson today.

                1. That’s my guess, too.

                  1. And you're all triggered by him lmao. I bet sarc is double replying to people already in this thread and I bet you forgot to switch into your Molly sock a few times and replied to yourself as well.

      2. Big balls, in Trinidad,
        see how they bounce around.
        Big balls, in Trinidad,
        The vaccine's got me down.

    2. These are 2 pay checks $78367 and $87367. that i received in last 2 months. ASq I am very happy that i can make thousands in my part time and now i am enjoying my life. Everybody can do this and earn lots of dollars from home in very short time period. Just visit this website now.

      Open this web…… Visit Here

    1. Will they change their name to BLMR?

    2. If convicted, he will be relegated to prison.

    3. He was just listening to tahnahisi coats when he said black men should rape white wemon as reparations

      1. That was Eldridge Cleaver.

  2. White House, which offered to call Minaj to discuss the safety of COVID-19 vaccines;

    WTHF? I give precisely zero shits about what Nicki Minaj says or does, but to the rest of rational society that wants people to get vaccinated for rational or scientific reasons, that should be an embarassment.

    1. Ditto. Who gives a shit what some stupid bint says? But in today's society celebrities are gods. People would rather listen to a stupid airhead than to their doctor.

      1. It's not about stupid. It's about reaching her audience and persuading them to get vaccinated.

      2. . "My cousin in Trinidad won't get the vaccine cuz his friend got it & became impotent. His testicles became swollen. His friend was weeks away from getting married, now the girl called off the wedding. So just pray on it & make sure you're comfortable with ur decision, not bullied," she wrote.

        If her Cousin's friend got the blue balls, how does his Fiancée not marrying make that any better? Why can't she do the real loving thing and *ahem!* relieve his pressure, even without a wedding?

      3. Is she stupid because of her skin color Brandy?

      4. It's like Peter Bergman said on the old Vicks-44 commercials in the Eighties: "I'm not a Doctor, but I play one on TV..."

      1. However, a White House official told Mediaite that it had offered to speak with Minaj via phone. “As we have with others, we offered a call with Nicki Minaj and one of our doctors to answer questions she has about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine,” the official said.

        We didn't offer to *have her over* to discuss he cousin's friend's balls, we offered to *call her on the phone* to discuss her cousin's friend's balls.

        People laughed at Sasha Baron Cohen punking people, Nicki Minaj appears to be succeeding at it accidentally.

    2. Sleepy, Creepy, Crazy, Cranky, Tankie, Corn-Pop, Lunch-Bucket, Basement-Bunker, Shotgun, Pudding-Cup Joe Biden and Nikki "Blue Balls" Minaj.

      (Fuck Be Unto Them.)

  3. As long as the feds refuse to consider the immunity of the survivors of the disease, I will not pay any attention to anything they say is "science".

    1. That's SCIENCE! (tm) to you bub!

    2. Giving credit to those previously infected is like saying those who got into an accident no longer need car insurance.

      1. I believe the value of the vaccine outweighs any known or likely risk at this point, but that is about the dumbest fucking thing I've ever read in my whole fucking life.

        I haven't muted you because I'd miss the entertainment; a bit like the Three Stooges.

        1. Except Larry, Curly, and Moe were much funnier. A a lot less obnoxious.

          1. Is shemp chopped liver?

            1. I forget about Shemp because he was there, then wasn't, and then he was there again after Curly had a stroke.

            2. No he's ham-boiger steak! *Ye-he-be-be-be-be-be!* *Nyuk!-Nyuk!-Nyuk!*

        2. It's Tony.

          1. What that fucking figures. The little bottom boy has certainly been socking it, hasn't he?

            1. It's like herding dust bunnies with these false accusations of sockpuppetry. I only ever use my own handle. I promise. I'm far too busy to bother with such games.

              But thanks for calling me little. I'll cash that in for weeks.

        3. In one post Molly just completely outdid jdromb and shrike as the dumbest motherfucker to post here.

          1. White Mike is thrilled to have been left out

            1. Mike is an asshole and a sophist, but I don’t think he’s dumb.

              1. Unless he's copy and pasting, he's fucking dumb. There are way too many stupid thoughts he shares to think he's not dumb.

      2. You're equating immune response to a vehicle accident?

        My you are stupid, feckless cunt.

      3. The vaccine prevents infection just as much as being insured prevents accidents.


        See? That actually makes sense, you stupid syphilitic faggot.

      4. Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you a prima facie example of stupid.

      5. not a comparable comparison not even apple to oranges level

        1. It seemed like a perfectly valid apples to tubas comparison to me...

      6. Being this stupid takes talent and dedication. I'm impressed. Keep up the good work!

        1. It was worth unmuting it for a moment to witness that crowning moment of idiocy. I'm impressed by the sheer volume of fucktardery on display, and in such few words as well. It was extraordinarily concentrated -- nigh *distilled* -- ignorance which we were privy to here.

          I appreciate Molly going far beyond the call of duty to provide the new gold standard for the phrase "dumb as a box of hair".

      7. So you admit you don't understand how immunity works?

        1. Here is a clue, if prior infection doesn't promote immunity then a vaccine won't work either. And we know that virus causes an immune response because all the signs and symptoms are actually a result of the immune response. It is with every virus.

          1. One of the first thing we learned at nursing school is one of the first aims of medicine is controlling the bodies reaction to pathogens. Fever is an inflammatory response, mucus production, swelling, etc all part of the bodies immune response. To a degree they are beneficial but when they get out of control the become life threatening. This is especially true with viruses. You shouldn't treat a low grade fever <100.5. You shouldn't stop a runny nose if it doesn't impact breathing (but blow often) because it clears pathogens from the upper respiratory system. You shouldn't medicate for a mild cough (it helps clear mucus out of the lower airway and mucus build up leads to pneumonia). Mild swelling and pain are uncomfortable but shouldn't be treated either.

            1. This new coronavirus was named SARS-CoV-2 The disease caused by the virus was named COVID-19 (COronVIrusDisease-2019) to show that it was discovered in 2019

              SARS= Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome That's what kills you eventually. The immune response. When it's excessive.

              1. Exactly.

              2. Almost all treatment for viruses are aimed at controlling the immune response until your immune response clears the virus. Because it is nearly impossible to cure a virus. You just control the response and let the body cure itself.

          2. Here is a clue, if prior infection doesn’t promote immunity then a vaccine won’t work either.

            This ^

      8. Lol, Molly sums up progressive science knowledge perfectly!

        Hint: vaccines work by infecting your body to stimulate an immune system response.

      9. I believe all doubt has been removed regarding Molly's intentions. It is now patently obvious she is a paid troll, either on the bankroll of Big Pharma or the Democratic Party. The entire premise of vaccine efficacy is based on the fact that exposure to a pathogen induces an immune response, which procures future immunity to said pathogen due to the recognition of the pathogen by the immune system, including but not limited to B cells, T cells, and antibodies. If you don't believe in natural immunity, then you don't believe in vaccine efficacy. You cannot claim vaccines work while claiming natural immunity (via prior infection) isn't real. It is contradictory and a logical fallacy, recognizable as such to any human being with half a brain. Except for the paid trolls I guess.

      10. It really depends how bad the accident was. If the car was totaled, it probably doesn’t need much insurance.

      11. Lmao. Thanks for meeting your daily retard quota in one sentence.

    3. They have less credibility than the raving drunk homeless guy that spouts nonsense.

  4. I am pretty sure Nicki has other things to worry about catching, Covid probably being a ways down on the list.

    1. testicle-deformation kerfuffle

      Is "kerfluffling" a way to clear up the blue balls? Did Nikki offer this to help her Cousin's friend?

      1. There are nearly 50 reports of testicular swelling in our own countries vaers system related to the covid vaxxes. To bad the reason writers must be too dumb to navigate the site or they mightve had to use some actual, up to date, data for once.

        Pretty soon they won't be able to include all the data from earlier this year when the vaccine wasnt widely available to drive up their "unvaxxed are hospitalized" numbers. Because when you look at the data from June until now (delta gasp!) the amount of vaxxed hospitalized is on steady increase. And in Vermont, our nation's most vaxxed state with nearly 80% adult vaccinated, they're now seeing their highest daily cases yet and nearly 35% of hospitalized are vaxxed, and rising. And that's with them fudging what vaxxed means (must have both shots and be at least 15 days from the 2nd) The numbers appear to be following the UK and Israel to a T.

        And keep in mind we have no Data on breakthrough cases, unless hospitals ask for and collect it themselves, because the cdc decided on may 1st that only breakthrough cases resulting in hospitalization were to be counted.

  5. Didn't this story land her in Twitter jail?

    1. Twitter denies it did. But Twitter denials are about as sound as... something not very sound.

      1. I believe that would be Joe Biden's cognitive capabilities.

      2. Twitter denials are about as sound as Twitter denials.

      3. But Twitter denials are about as sound as…

        This kind of logic:

        Giving credit to those previously infected is like saying those who got into an accident no longer need car insurance.

        - MollyGodiva

        1. That's an all-timer

        2. Oh wow!

  6. Aww, Ms Wolfe, you were so close! But you should be advising the government to be quiet, rather than persuade.

    If you truly believe- and are not just mouthing platitudes- that medical procedures should be personal decisions, why oh why do you believe that the Federal Government has any business "persuading" us one way or the other? "Personal" decisions are personal because there is no *one* answer to fit everyone. And government is INCAPABLE of properly persuading 356 Million people an their individual best course of health. How many food pyramids, drug wars, healthcare mandates, and school lunch subsidies does the government need to vomit forth in order for this to be obvious?

    Put aside that our Federal Government isn't just "Persuading" people to get the two three jabs and a mask too! No, they are persuading people to OSTRACIZE one another for failing to do the same. This is deeply creepy as fuck, and libertarians around the world should be calling it out as such.

    I think a lot of lefty libertarians do not realize how deeply creepy as fuck this "persuasion" campaign really is, because deep down they really believe that there is only one good choice here. And so, despite their abstract belief in personal freedom, they see no major objection to the government "persuading" us to take that ONE choice, and to maybe "persuade" others to apply a little social pressure on behalf of the right choice. This blind spot among lefty libertarians is going to ultimately bite them one day.

    1. Well done; well said.

    2. If they are pushing mandates and government persuasion, they have less than an abstract belief in personal freedom.

    3. "We're going to let you choose freely between getting vaccinated and being shunned by society while you starve to death in the dark. Totally your call!"

  7. As dumb as she otherwise sounds, she made the rational decision to not attend a giant unmasked gala while being concerned about COVID.

    Unlike AOC.

    1. I pray every day that AOC gets COVID.

    2. She actually said she'd get vaxed for her future tour, just didn't think the MET Gala requirement was worth getting vaxed for.

      1. Well it isn't.

  8. People making decisions about what they do to their bodies?? What kind of INSANITY is that?

    1. Fucking clumps of cells.

  9. It would not be nearly so difficult to "persuade" people if the product being pushed actually worked.

    Things that work, and work well, sell themselves. Things that do not work require you to pay people to take them.

    If the vaccine actually worked, the government would not need to bribe or threaten people. It is that simple. Since the government is bribing and threatening people, the logical conclusion is that the vaccine does not work.

    1. If the vaccine works, the vaccinated should not need masks.
      If masks work, we should not need the vaccine.
      If fascism worked, we would all be speaking Italian or German.

      1. How do you even manage to feed yourself with that level of stupidity?

        1. Your mom feeds him.

        2. ^thinks facism is a good idea^

        3. Paid troll molly bitch becomes even more feckless smelly cunt.

        4. "How do you even manage to feed yourself with that level of stupidity?"

          You are assuming they are actual people posting, and not just computer-generated comments.

          1. Are you saying Longtobefree is a bot or Molly?

            1. Your decision.

            2. What abot both?

              1. I would answer with a witty pun, but I suck at them.

        5. What was stupid about his comment?

          1. It contradicts top men. Top men she says!

        6. Says the person who doesn't understand how immunization works.

        7. Okay, Molly, I'll bite: what's stupid about what he said?

          Vaccines prevent infection and spread. Period. End of story. Those that don't are not vaccines. They might be treatments of some sort (i.e. maybe, possibly, on a good day if the stars align, preventing serious disease), but that's about it.

        8. Bahaha. Uh ha. Ooo wee....

          Bahahahaha. She literally tried calling someone else dumb after what she said up thread. Comedy gold. She must be getting paid.

        9. "How do you even manage to feed yourself with that level of stupidity?" says the moron stupid enough to write:

          Giving credit to those previously infected is like saying those who got into an accident no longer need car insurance.

          Congratulations on taking the top spot for "Stupidest post of 2021" so far. And, it has been a long year, full of stupid shit.

  10. Just to add one more bit of anecdotal 'evidence' to the mass confusion:
    I have a friend who was crippled by the "regular" flu shot.
    He got the shot, and that day lost feeling in his legs, and was hospitalized for 6 months, not including rehab.
    That did not affect my decision regarding the shot for myself, but it was the fully tested and approved, in regular use for a long time, lots of data to judge by, flu vaccine, not an experimental technology with no long term track record.
    Shit happens.

    1. "Shit happens."

      1. And fear of shit happening stops plenty of people from doing something that they really shouldn't be so fearful of.

        Like poison and dosage. Risk and probability matter.

        But, most folks have trouble understanding percentages let alone statistics.

    2. Mrs. Casual got the jab when it went around early on at the hospital. One of her co-workers suffered a bout of Bell's Palsy. "But, once you're all vaccinated you don't have to wear masks, right?" I asked. "Nope." This was before Delta.

      Sometimes shit happens. Sometimes people try to fuck you any way they can.

  11. While vaccination is still not mandatory, the ball’s in Nicki’s court.

    1. "While vaccination is still not mandatory . . . "
      You're not from around here, are you?

      Or else you don't travel, don't work, don't go out to eat, don't attend concerts or sports events.

      1. I travel in this state. And eat in restaurants. Work. All unvaccinated and without a mask. No fake passport either. If I were sick, I’d get tested and isolate until results are ok.

        I don’t attend loud gatherings.

        1. I love loud gatherings. Rock concerts, the Symphony, family gatherings. They're the one great social joy in my life, outside of travel.

          Stupidity and bad ideology are one thing, but when they affect this much of my life it's different. And I, too, don't wear a mask. I mean, I'm almost always outdoors, there's no risk, I'm vaccinated... but before the next concert I attend they'll have to verify vaccination status. The opera just announced everyone wears masks, even though the season here isn't until March.

          If the only way to not comply is to suck all the joy out of life, I have nothing left. Well, except for work. And the complaining about work. Nightly periods of unconsciousness, then sweet sweet death.

          1. Take some leftists with you on your way out

          2. Would you enjoy suicide?

            1. No idea. Why do you ask?

              If you give it a try, let me know how it goes afterwards.

            2. Curious folks are dying to find out what the experience is like.

              1. Alas, no one is here to tell the tale.

  12. This is not "hesitancy", this is being an intentional idiot and spreading wildly false information. People like this can not be reasoned with, not amount of persuasion will help, and they have zero concern for others. The only way to make them stop being a walking covid factory is to have mandates.

    1. I am all for mandates if faggots like you get to try to enforce them. You'll find it very difficult to reason with people with your brains on the floor.

      1. Oh yes. I would at this point almost support a civil war with the pro-covid morons.

        1. Is that like the time you "almost" fucked your sister?

        2. I am saying that if the pro-covid morons decide to use violence I would be ok with countering with more violence. Death is the only thing they support.

          1. The fact that you had to qualify your milquetoast passive-aggressive not-so-subtle endorsement of violence with a follow up comment to assuage the glowies watching every word you write demonstrates unequivocally that you are a faggot destined for a slow whimpering knifing, ala Saving Private Ryan.

            1. That was one disturbing scene; dx as a "misplaced rape," cruel and slow. And that fucktard Upchuck just stayed on the stairs.

              1. Indeed.

                That scene broke a long line of heroic "last minute saves" in war movies and still hits hard to this day.

              2. Far more soldiers died from being shot than bayoneted during all the wars when bayonets were the main offensive weapons (prior to repeating arms becoming dominate, so civil war and before). Most the time the enemy would break rather than face the bayonet. The same soldiers who would stand in rank while everyone was falling around them from cannon and musket balls would break rather than face the bayonet. Getting stabbed especially slowly is far scarier than getting shot to most people.

          2. How the hell are you going to enforce all your mandates without the implicit threat of state violence?
            It's somehow alright for you to implicitly threaten force and violence, but not for Goldstaedt to explicitly threaten as a response to yours.

            What a bunch of psychotics you are.

            1. They are psychotics because they think that there is always going to be someone else to do their dirty work for them. Were it otherwise, they would cower in the corner in silence or, perhaps, reconsider their position.

              Anybody that has ever served in a combat zone or, shit, ever even been in a bad fight, understands full well the grueling reality of engaging in a conflict with someone capable of resisting and even ending your life.

              The people that unleash war and violence upon society are never the people with firsthand experience of these things, but always the larping cowards that have spent their entire lives relying on someone else to do the heavy lifting. When push comes to shove, they always end up on the floor bewildered and in disbelief as to what just happened to them, and what is about to happen.

              1. Well said. But speaking to a generation who believe every thing is solved with a "911" call, and that someone else has a "duty" to protect them...well, it's going to take a happening, or two, to change that mentality. Or just eradicate it.

          3. Pro-COVID like the doctor that funded the careless lab working on this in the same area where it first appeared?

            1. Conspiracy theory!!1!!1!

    2. The only way to make them stop being a walking covid factory is to have mandates.


      1. Getting a vaccine is not slavery you nitwit.

        1. Slavery wasn't slavery either, just a jobs program.

          1. Plantations were the Marxian communes that Molly longs for.

        2. The vaccine isn't the issue. The tyrannical use of force is.

          But I suppose the sarcasm of my response was lost on someone of your station.

        3. Under that definition, banning abortion isn't slavery either. Both have to do with body autonomy and private health care decisions.

        4. Will 100% vaccination end COVID?

          1. No, it will not. It will mutate and different strains will appear for who knows how long.

            I got the vaccine because given the type of work I do, I decided it was worth possible [as yet unknown] risks vs getting the virus and taking my chances--and I've known some who were unvaccinated and who died from it--without any degree of immunity.

            But I sure as hell do not want to live in a country that looks anything like Australia. If you do, then by all means go there.

          2. Only if you ignore all the animal hosts. And the fact that 1/3 of those vaccinated are still susceptible. And the impossibility of getting to 100% vaccinations. And the fact we still don't know the origins. But if you ignore all those fact, it is hypothetically possible.

    3. You identify, I see.

    4. "The only way to make them stop is become fascist and authoritarian to a degree that eventually the unvaccinated will be gassed and thrown in ovens"

      - Feckless Cunt Molly Bitch the Paid Troll

      1. gassed and thrown in ovens

        That's an idea that's never been tried before!

        /Mizek the stormfag

        1. She actually says violence is what she hopes for above.

          1. Yet some here still deny the collectivist threat we face.

    5. "The only way to make them stop being a walking covid factory is to have mandates."

      Mandates from whom.. and for whom?

    6. I dunno. People have a tendency to believe "first hand" information from relatives. In this case it was her cousin. Well, her cousin's friend. Well, a friend of her cousin's friend. Well, her cousin heard a story from some guy who crashed on their couch while they were smoking pot.

    7. So if mandates are necessary for us regular citizens why isn't Biden mandating vaccines for Afghani refugees and illegal immigrants they detain?

      1. Also his mandates don't apply to Congress and the Federal courts (mainly because they are separate powers, at least he recognizes some restrictions on his power).

        1. Then we will never get 100% vaccinated.
          Biden is a failure.

  13. Good for her, whoever she is.

  14. I see her name on the Daily Fail all the time but have no fucking clue as to why she's influential or important.

    Can some teenage girl clue me in? JesseAz? R Mac? Mother's Lament?

    My daughter isn't quite that old yet, so I need input from you ladies.

    1. Oh we know you already know, screetch. Don't be coy with us now.

      1. Sorry. Not into carp. You are obviously in the know. Please explain why this is a big deal.

        1. It's good that you're not into carp. And if you had to listen to her, you'd wish you were hard of herring.

          1. Nice puns. And I'll trust your judgment.

        2. It's because she's black, huh. No miscegenation for sarc.

          "Not into carp"
          sarcasmic's coy way of saying "Dinger's have big lips".

          1. A very Koi way.

    2. My daughter isn’t quite that old yet

      That's her entire appeal, though, isn't it, you child molesting gimp?

      1. Dude, these demented fantasies of yours you keep projecting into these comments are sick. Seriously. Get help.

        1. Talking about your daughter incessantly when engaging in shitposting with strangers on the internet is definitely a winning formula for convincing people you are not an incestuous pedophile.

    3. Can some teenage girl clue me in?

      This from the pathetic boomer who is obsessed with a 20 year old movie about adolescent girls and tried to get laid by Tulpa at a Ministry concert. Lmfao.

      My daughter isn’t quite that old yet, so I need input from you ladies.

      Wherein sarcasmic conveniently forgets the 50 times he's broken down and told us all his sob story about how nothing is ever his fault and the judge and lawyer fucked him when his wife divorced him and was given sole custody of his kids for reasons that totally don't include him sexually abusing them.

    4. Can some teenage girl clue me in? JesseAz? R Mac? Mother’s Lament?

      Apparently, you can call the White House and ask who she is. They seem to value her opinion about her cousin's friend's balls.

  15. Never in history have so many people made such an effort to spread a deadly virus in their own community. People in the future will be confused about how dumb you all are.

    1. a deadly virus ...


      1. A higher death rate than Ebola and Smallpox combined. Covid has a 220% mortality rate. THE SCIENCE says so.

        1. But seriously, it's important and shouldn't be so readily thrown out without context. A "deadly" virus. Deadly because?

          Because it's killed a lot of people!

          Compared to how many infections?

          Ebola CFR is ~50% with some scientific journals and studies suggesting could even be higher depending on how one tracks the disease. Anything with a CFR of 50% (or higher) is, by definition not just killing the old and infirm, or people with poorly managed comorbidities.

          Ebola is a virus I would, without hesitation, call "a deadly virus".

          The regular flu killed 80,000 in 2018 (if I'm correct). And we weren't tracking regular flu with any rigor compared to how we track Coronavirus. But regardless, 80,000 people were killed by regular flu. Do we always refer to the regular flu as a "deadly" virus? Or do we more carefully use phrases such as a virus "which can be deadly".

      2. Deadly: adj. Has caused people death.

        1. Biden’s drone strikes have killed more innocent children than I have total people via COVID.

        2. So ladders and lakes are "deadly".

          1. Not the analogies I would have chosen, but sure they are deadly. So, we take precautions against the deadly aspects:
            - Ladders: Make sure they are on solid ground, follow instructions, possibly secure the top end by tying off, don't go around pushing ladders over, etc.
            - Lakes: Learn to swim, wear a life jacket, stay off lake in storm, don't throw random people you meet on the street into one, etc.
            - SARS-CoV-2: Get vaccinated, wear a mask if you think you might be infected and have to be around people, etc.

            1. So, we take precautions against the deadly aspects

              Yeah I noticed how armed agents of the state and federal government come 'round my place every time I bust out the extension ladder and stuff me into a harness at gunpoint.

              Oh wait, I shingled my entire roof in tennis shoes with no socks, cargo shorts filled to capacity with nails, and a pneumatic nailer with nary a rope, harness or crash pad in sight, because I'm not a neurotic, frightened, pusillanimous bitch, and nobody gave a fuck because they're not neurotic, busybody, bootlicking, totalitarian, pusillanimous bitches.

              1. Where did I advocate for armed government agents?

                It’s just a dumb personal choice to not get vaccinated for COVID-19. I’m not in favor of Biden’s OSHA directive, for the record.

                1. Yet you run into every thread to push the same concept of having people do your bidding instead of talking against the mandates. Weird. Your primary concern is doing what the government wants you to do. Not pushing back against an overbearing government. Principles!

                  1. This is because Mike is, as White Knight correctly pointed out, a libertarian.

            2. Aspirin is also deadly and we should ban it from all stores.

              1. And alcohol.

            3. And here we see Mike do the same thing as Molly.

        3. For the benefit of the thread, arguing with Mike is arguing with someone who will never take responsibility for what he says. In fact, within days he will be acting as if he never said these things in the first place. He is a completely disingenuous adversary and you would do better arguing with the main character from Memento.

          That is Mike insisting that he “would never look to Rolling Stone” for news, after spreading their bogus ivermectin story only days earlier. Consider that: He didn’t apologize. He didn’t even try to ignore his mistake. He brazenly tried to dunk on Rolling Stone to make himself look like an arbiter of truth.

          The pathological narcissism required to disrespect the truth and readers so heavily should make him ashamed. It won't though, so I advise others in the thread to avoid engaging with someone that argues in such bad faith.

    2. Some Amerindians might disagree with you on that.

    3. Prediction: people in the future will forget about everything except the final death totals and completely forget that this is just what happens when a coronavirus emerges. Which is as good a reason as any to not intentionally breed them in a country with a less-than-stellar safety record in matters far less complicated than SuperScience.

      Get over yourself. You're not important, our trials and tribulations are not unique, and there's precious little that any government can do to alter the final tally.

    4. 1 in 72 chance per incident of getting HIV when you take it up the ass, shreek.

      1. So Shreek should think long andhard before the next time he engages in such activity.

        1. It's not necessarily voluntary. Just one of the many hazards of passing out drunk behind the Greyhound station.

    5. And here we see Molly ignore the fact that vaccinated people can be vectors too.

  16. There were zero COVID deaths during the Coolidge administration, despite the lack of a vaccine. True story.

  17. Here is an idea.

    Just provide a relative risk analysis.

    No need to persuade or mandate, at least in civilian society.

    1. I thought relative risk was the one thing we were not supposed to talk about, because then people saw how relatively benign this virus is to the general population.

      1. Diane, by relatively benign, you mean as compared to nuclear wars? More deaths already than any war we've been in so far, 1 out of every 450 Americans have died from it, and it kills more than 20 times the number who die from flu. Add to that the terrible suffering of many who land in hospitals from it - I know 2 docs who work on them and they have described it - the beds they take up from other needy patients, and the fact that at least 20% of those who have been sick from it come back to docs afterwards with possibly chronic heart, lung, and brain problems.

        How is that worth screwing around with when you can get a free shot that will make your catching it much less likely and if you do, make it highly unlikely it will kill you or make you very sick? The shots have very little to no serious risks associated with it, and of those few, they are controllable and much less risky than Covid.

        1. Diane, by relatively benign, you mean as compared to nuclear wars?

          No, as compared to Ebola or the Spanish flu.

          1. Diane, so dying or getting really sick from something not as bad as Ebola is no problem (Spanish flu was around when we didn't have today's medicine, so comparisons are not likely meaningful)?

            1. Spanish flu was an influenza virus. We still don't have an effective cure for influenza and still don't have a really effective vaccine. God, you are jejune.

            2. Spanish Flu was specifically deadly to young healthy people. COVID, in the complete absence of any treatment at all is not deadly to young healthy people. So the comparison has value.

              Diane, so dying or getting really sick from something not as bad as Ebola is no problem

              This is a fun parlor trick, but it doesn't work on me. I didn't say it was "no problem" writ large. I asked for a definition of "deadly" so as to get context from the person making the claim. If we casually throw around the term "deadly virus" with no context, then that is exactly what leads to draconian policies which are completely untethered from any scientific reality. Like what we have right now.

              Or do you still believe that cloth medical masks are making dramatic reductions in the spread of COVID because it's "doing something".

              1. Diane, I'm not getting your cavalier attitude about a disease whih has been deadly to 650k Americans and leaves others f...d up possibly for life, and especially when the antidote is free and virtually risk free. You seem to think you re too smart to be somehow taken in by those squares in the medical community - or something.

                Cloth masks will help minimize the spread of Covid if most to all of those present in a closed public space are wearing them. I explained the mechanism of this in another post.

                1. I’m not getting your cavalier attitude about a disease whih has been deadly to 650k Americans

                  Heart disease killed 5 times that many people in the same time frame. Shall we mandate the AHA-recommended diet and daily cardiovascular exercise? If so, what shall we do when, say, the dietary recommendation of eating lots and lots of hydrogenated vegetable oil to replace animal fats turns out to be fatal advice after half a century?

                  especially when the antidote is free and virtually risk free.

                  White Mike, I'm not getting your cavalier attitutde about an investigational vaccine which has been deadly to 16k Americans and leaves others fucked up possibly for life, and especially when the chance of dying from COVID for anyone under 70 that isn't 500 pounds is 1 in 10,000.

                2. a disease whih has been deadly to 650k Americans

                  Died with vs Died of. Sorry you fall for the narrative so easily. Mostly in those > 74, mostly the obese, mostly those in old age and generally unhealthy.

                  Again, how much are you willing to spend to eliminate covid based on those parameters?

                  1. Jesse, if White Mike could he would jail all of us unvaccinated even if it only saved one obese, elderly Democratic voter. Which is strange because even if fatty Matlock contracts and succumbs to COVID they will still be a Democratic voter.

                3. Risk free.

                  My longtime Usenet ally, Christopher Charles Morton, pointed this out.


                  Because he doesn't want to die or lose limbs?

                  A friend knows somebody who died from it.

                  I just saw a story about a woman who lost her legs, and might lose her hands because of it.

            3. For those under 65 the fatality for COVID is comparable to the annual influenza.

              1. soldier, what do you have against those over 65 that you consider them expendable, and for no particular cause?

                1. I feel like Chuck Schumer has just come into the comments.

                  A statement of fact was made: This virus has a CFR for people < 65 comparable to that of regular flu.

                  Response: Why do you hate the jews?

                  1. Diane, get your gestalts checked. They are not working.

                    1. In your opinion and you can see how important your opinion is to most of the readers on here.

                2. The fact is that most over 65 are already vaccinated. So if the vaccine is effective, which appears to be so far, there is no need to punish the young with mandates if the most at risk population is already protected.
                  And this was just a stupid gotcha. It was juvenile, sophomoric pedantry.

                  1. soldier, people under 65 are dying, and people of all ages can spread Covid. The fewer are vaccinated, the more will die or spread it. Got it?

                    1. People under 65 die from the annual flu at the same rate as COVID and spread the flu and we don't mandate flu vaccines. Got it. And you assertion that high vaccines would slow the spread is dependent on a lot of unproven assumptions. As I've told you in the past.

                    2. And you assertion that high vaccines would slow the spread is dependent on a lot of unproven assumptions. As I’ve told you in the past.

                      It's also been absolutely fucking destroyed by the reality in places like Israel with 90% vaccination rates where case numbers are exploding (and yet the fatality rate remains the same; meaning few people are dying). It's almost like endemic coronaviruses have been with humanity for millions of years or something.

                    3. The fewer are vaccinated, the more will die or spread it. Got it?

                      See Israel? LOL.

                    4. The risks are listed here, compiled by the CDC.


                      0-19 Years 1 in 33,333
                      20-49 Years 1 in 5,000
                      50-69 Years 1 in 200
                      70+ 1 in 18
                      *80+ not included

                    5. That’s his whole ducking point! People under 65 are dying with/from covid at the same rate they do with/from the flu. And you motherfuckers weren’t calling for masks or mandatory vaccinations for that!

                  2. The fact is that most over 65 are already vaccinated. So if the vaccine is effective, which appears to be so far

                    I can't figure out IF the vaccine is effective. Every person pushing the vaccine is terrified to the point of apoplexy over the unvaccinated. Then scientists keep saying, "Yeah, well, it's more like an ibuprofen for COVID, you'll still catch it, but you won't die from it!"

                    Then the CDC mysteriously changed their definition of vaccine after eleventy thousand years, saying that vaccination doesn't confer "immunity" it just relieves the symptoms.

                    1. Re: definition of vaccine, this is the kind of bullshit that sets people off and/or makes them assume the speaker is a lying psycho. If you can't figure out IF the vaccine is effective, you're either using a bullshit definition of effective, or you're willfully ignorant.

                      FTR the CDC definition change is from: “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease” to the current “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”

                      Sterilizing immunity is not the "definition of vaccine." Sterilizing immunity is you get the jab and you cannot be infected, period. Very, very few vaccines (if any?) confer sterilizing immunity.

                      Most vaccines just substantially reduce the risk of severe or even symptomatic infection and ease the path to herd immunity in an affected population. It's why despite previously-near-universal MMR, new age retards in California still manage to cause outbreaks by refusing to vaccinate their kids in large enough numbers in a particular area. It's not that measles is spreading only in the unvaccinated population (mercifully, there aren't enough of them for that), it's that there are enough infected around to cause breakthrough infections in the vaccinated population.

                      Obviously, the vaccinated population wasn't 100% immune, they were just protected enough that with previously-more-complete rates of vaccination, endemic spread was impossible. Until the anti vax retards.

                    2. Endemic was impossible if we got high vaccinations rates, eliminated all animal hosts, and had totally closed borders. Fixed it for you.
                      The trifecta of herd immunity is
                      1) vaccinations
                      2) eliminating controlling disease vectors such as pests and other animal hosts
                      3) a closed population.
                      The we can vaccinate to herd immunity misses 2 out of 3 of the conditions you need for herd immunity, which was a theory creates by veterinary medicine and animal science. And the first rule of those two sciences is you can't vaccinate your way out of poor management.

                    3. Uhm dude you are using endemic wrong BTW.

                  3. So if the vaccine is effective, which appears to be so far

                    As long as we exclude all the data form Israel and the UK demonstrating effectiveness of about 39% when the sticker says 95%.

                    1. It is effective at decreasing symptoms. Not great at reducing infections, the same as the influenza vaccine. Which the virus is very comparable to for morbidity and mortality. It is about as effective as you can get with a high morbidity, low mortality, rapidly mutating, single strand RNA vaccine. Anyone who thinks the vaccine will end the probable endemic is smoking dope. Or doesn't understand pathology and immunology.

                  4. Joe is chemjeff?

              2. People keep burying that fact.


                Drinking establishments are most often populated by people in their 20s and 30s, who are least likely to be vaccinated, the city said.

                “Data show that those who are 18-34 years old are least likely to be vaccinated and are being infected at higher rates than other age groups,” the city Health Department said in a statement. “Indoor bars, breweries, wineries and distilleries are considered some of the most high-risk settings and have the highest instances of interaction without masks.”

                This further reinforces a point I made both here and elsewhere online.

                The vaccination campaign jumped the shark when it turned from informing old people where and when to get vaccinated to trying to convince young people to want to get vaccinated.

                Only 39% of the people of that age group there are unvaccinated. If only 39% of the 18-34 demographic is unvaccinated, then vaccinating all of them is not likely prevent even one hundred COVID deaths. If unvaccinated people in that age range have more obesity than 18-34 year olds nationwide, that number would barely top 100. If a significant proportion of these people are immune because they survived COVID-19, that number is even less- maybe thirty or so.

                So, just to save no more than a little over hundred people from a communicable disease, out of a population of half a million, we need to create vaccine mandates?

                Or is this mandate just an exercise in arrogance, stupidity, and malice?

                  1. No one is forbidding them, from being vaccinated now, and a large minority of people 18-34 needed the vaccine due to obesity or diabetes (I suspect they are the vast majority of people 18-34 who were vaccinated.)

                    Before vaccines became available, I had the idea of paying people under 40 years of age $3,000 to volunteer to be infected and subsequently billeted in a quarantine camp for three weeks. Logistics would be a nightmare (outside of prisons, neither the United States nor the several states have experience isolating young people from the rest of society)

                    We do not need this now, since we can vaccinate the old, as well as others who have aggravating risk factors. But this idea of mine would have been necessary iof the vaccine had not been invented.

                    1. In the '40s that's what we would have done. Use the empty dorms/hotels to allow low-risk volunteers to be exposed and quarantine under medical supervision. It would have given us tons of information about the virus and would have been 100% voluntary.

                      So of course we fucked it all up instead.

            4. And getting really sick? Most cases are mild to asymptomatic. Another unscientific hyperbole from you.

              1. And before you mention long COVID, which is still a scientifically debatable thing BTW, it is not unusual for viral infections to cause long term harm to a small percentage of the infected population.

        2. More deaths already than any war we’ve been in so far

          WTF? It's like 1/20th of WWII.

          1. Leftism is the deadliest virus that's ever existed.

            1. The TDS variant is more cawntagious.

          2. And equivalent in graw numbers to the Civil war. But in both cases, a larger percentage of the population died. That is why only hyperbolic chicken littles use raw numbers as opposed to deaths per 1000 or percentages.

            1. So, it occurs to me, the only way you arrive at any serious "more deadly in any war we've been in so far" is if you take an... unusually... nationalistic view of infectious disease/pandemics. Like if Hitler had used infectious disease and quarantine to kill 15M Europeans it would be OK as long as none were Americans.

        3. 3 Million people in the US die every year. You can't prevent death. The deaths from Covid are within 10% of the yearly death rate, mostly concentrated in the elderly (above 74). It is concentrated in the obese and those with other comorbidities. How much are you willing to spend to "stop" those deaths?

    2. I don't expect anyone who will ignore the data from hundreds of millions of people who have had the vaccine in favor of a twitter post about a person who knows a guy whose cousin was impotent because of a shot isn't good at assessing relative risk.

      But, honestly, most people aren't. If they were they'd be a hell of a lot more scared of driving to the airport than of taking a flight somewhere. They'd NEVER talk on their phone in the car much less text. They'd do a lot of things differently. But they don't. We don't.

      So you're right. Give relative numbers. Collect good data. And stop punishing people making their own choices and then blaming it on other people who made their choices. You have a right to be wrong. Or more to the point, to choose differently than I did.

      Never gonna' happen. People like to tell other people what to do. People like to look down on other people who made the "wrong" choice (ie not they choice they made) because it makes them feel smug and superior. Fuck I hate those people. I feel superior just because I'm better than them.

      1. Stuck, unlike someone deciding to drive to the airport, their decision to not get vaccinated or wear a mask in closed public spaces potentially impacts us all. That's why other vaccines have been mandated for decades for various activities. Sure, you can opt out, but then you don't get to participate in those activities.

        1. That is wrong. You can opt out of MMR but you can still go to school. You can opt out of chickenpox and still go to school. In fact, I can't think of a single vaccine that is mandated or else you will be expelled from society or lose your job. If you ever got anything correct it is by pure accident.

          1. soldiermedic, absent medical reasons, most states require kids be vaccinated to attaned school a dn many universities do as well. the military requires hem and that begin with George Washington.

            No one is proposing that those who don't be "expelled form society", but employers - including me - can require it. In my case I wouldn't have fired anyone, but I explained that we would no longer be able to send them into clients houses, which is part of our work. Fortunately, they all decide to get vaccinated and are relieved now that they did.

            1. No, if that wasn't the case we wouldn't have measles resurgences across the country being spread in schools.

            2. All vaccines I have ever dealt with have a conscious objection refusal that is recognized. And the military is a completely different thing. First the military is a volunteer service. Second, you give up body autonomy when you join the military, I've already told you why that is a stupid analogy. Your body is literally considered government property once you join the military. You aren't saying that civilians bodies are government property are you?
              And I don't care what you did, but what the government is forcing people to do as employers. Understand the difference? Probably not.

              1. "You aren’t saying that civilians bodies are government property are you?"

                That is precisely what it's saying.

                1. They don't realize that is what they are saying but in effect it is what they are saying.

                  1. Your body, our choice.

            3. Hey Bossman White Mike, how do you find the time to shtipost at for 8-12 hours a day, every day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, keep yourself abreast of the latest in genetic science, and STILL operate that ultra successful door to door vacuum cleaner business of yours? Truly a renaissance man.

            4. "most states require kids be vaccinated to attaned school a dn many universities do as well."

              You are absolutely positively wrong. Schools do not advertise this, but you are absolutely allowed to send your unvaccinated child to school. You only have to sign a single piece of paper noting your objection to vaccines.

              I warned you about this a week or so ago when you showed up thinking that you had a handle on all the facts: your echo chamber forums did not prepare you for these comments. Reason's free-for-all comment section is the Arrakis of forums. We've seen a lot more than you think you have.

              1. I told him the same thing three days ago when he used the same line. Yet here he is regurgitating it.

        2. wear a mask in closed public spaces

          I got my answer to the question above I guess.

          The CDC on cloth medical masks-- the type worn by 99.9999999% of everyone I see:

          Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids (36). There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.

          You're scared of the virus. Fine, be scared. I'm vaccinated, so I'm not scared of the unvaccinated. If you're that terrified, then get the fucking vaccination and cover your house in saran-wrap and duct tape.

          1. Diane, you are quoting from a CDC guideline from May 2020, or 1.5 months after the pandemic gained steam here. The CDC now recommends mask wearing in closed public spaces and there are numerous studies demonstrating their effectiveness. Keep in mind that they are not perfect or a guarantee someone will not catch it, and they are most effective in keeping others from catching the disease from the mask wearer, not in protecting them. They restrict the spread of particles as they are exhaled, keeping most within the immediate area of the mask wearer, while those particles expressed by others may travel to within less than inch of the nose and mouth of a mask wearer who is inhaling. Without a very large to complete compliance with mask wearing their effectiveness is much negated. That is why it makes perfect sense that we encourage all to wear them.

            Think about it.

            1. That's not a CDC guideline, it's a study of medical masks for influenza.

            2. Encourage does not equal mandates.

            3. It's amazing that every mask study dating back to 1914 reached the same conclusion that they are either completely useless or nearly useless at preventing the spread of respiratory viruses, but we ought to discard all of those and follow The Science of a bureaucracy that went from recommending no masks to recommending 3 masks in less than 8 months.

            4. I have a very serious scientific question for you. If underwear and pants cannot stop a fart from escaping, how exactly does a cloth mask stop a virus that is so tiny you need an electron microscope to see it? I mean, I get that the underwear and pants keep the runny stuff from spewing out. Much like the masks keep the runny stuff from spewing out. But really, even without a mask, the droplets (or "particles" as you are calling them) would be too heavy to remain suspended in the air and would fall to the ground, thus posing little to no risk to others. It's the "particles" that are light and diffused, which easily slip through a mask (much like a fart through underwear), that are the risk to others. So really the mask does nothing to stop the virus, just as underwear does nothing to stop farts.

            5. It's talismanism. Nothing more.

        3. Troll enters the building...

          Who's sock are you?

      2. I don’t expect anyone who will ignore the data from hundreds of millions of people who have had the vaccine in favor of a twitter post about a person who knows a guy whose cousin was impotent because of a shot isn’t good at assessing relative risk.

        I trust their judgment about as much as the people who ignore 600,000 VAERS reports and want to force me to take a medication whose safety studies are still 2 years away from completion.

      3. "People like to tell other people what to do. People like to look down on other people who made the “wrong” choice (ie not they choice they made) because it makes them feel smug and superior. Fuck I hate those people. I feel superior just because I’m better than them."

        Fuck off with your false equivocation.
        One side wants people to make their own choices.
        The other side insists everyone be obedient to the behavior they impose.
        Not at all equal.

        1. Someone lacks reading comprehension.

          50 centers don't get the joke, I guess.

          But the point remains, no matter how wrong it is, the government is going to continue to mandate rather than advise and let people make their own decisions.

          Not only are they always going to try and mandate rather than advise, and there are always people who will be sanctimonious about it. Because... well, all of fucking history. I'm right here. This is human nature.

          Oh, and watch your fucking mouth. There are children somewhere.

    3. MIchael, apparently there is a need because the evidence has been clear for many months and yet millions of Americans - literate and educated - have decide to get their science from their uncle, Facebook, or any number of crackpot hucksters, some of them selling something and others just nuts.

      1. How about getting your science from an Associated Press fact check?

        That means the case fatality ratio -- or the portion of known cases that result in death in the country -- is 1.8%. In other words, on average, 98.2% of known COVID-19 patients in the U.S. survive. Because the true number of infections is much larger than just the documented cases, the actual survival rate of all COVID-19 infections is even higher than 98.2%.

        1. Diane, approx 650,000 Americans have died from Covid with many more suffering with possibly chronic symptons affecting their heart, lings, and brain.

          How does it make any sense to not innoculate ourselves against this when the vaccine is about as safe as vaccines get. The risk/benefit analysis is all in its favor.

          1. Who said anything about not inoculating themselves? I merely asked for a definition to "deadly" on a virus with an est. survival rate of over 99% across the population.

            I get a regular flu shot every year too. So why am I wearing a mask, social distancing and being forced to show a passport to earn a living... for a virus with over 99% survival?

            1. Diane, I just wiped a tear after reading of your hard life. Those lucky mfers in the 14th century didn't have to put up with this nonsense with the bubonic plague! They just killed more Jews and paraded from town to town flagellating themselves and it worked! Half of them survived!

              1. Why do you keep acting like COVID is the same as the Bubonic Plague. I mean, I guess they were both "deadly", no?

                1. Diane, the value of the comparison to the Bubonic plague is the similarity to everyone in medieval Europe by the ignorant response by about 40% of Americans . In the 14th century they had the excuse of not knowing any better and mankind had not yet pulled off an impressive feat like developing a vaccine in 11 months, so there was no option. While the numbers are not the same, we now have had thousands of avoidable deaths by citizens with the benefit of literacy and a decent education , but too ignorant to use it. We should celebrate our scientific achievements like the vaccine, but that 40% of fools is cause for concern about our future.

                  1. There is no value in the comparison. Except hyperbole. Comparing a bacterial infection with a high mortality rate to a viral infection with a low mortality rate is only meant for hyperbolic nonsense.

                  2. We know that thr young and healthy are of insignificant risk.

                    1. Are not at significant risk?

              2. I just read your mendacious response comparing the fatality of bubonic plague (caused by a bacteria) to COVID (a coronavirus) and spit out my coffee laughing at you puerile understanding of science.

                1. soldier, I'm sorry you missed the point again, but I can't explain everything to you.

                  1. You haven't bothered to explain anything. And it was a stupid point. Got it?

                  2. No we got your point, it was chicken little hyperbole.

                  3. Hahahahahahahahahaha

                    God damn you are comedy gold.


                Ok, done. Vaccinated.


                Why not?


                1. The actual proposition was that if most people get vaccinated we could all return to normal. But people are refusing vaccination, and grasping at every reason not to.

                  1. I don’t need it. And I never left normal. Fuck you and fuck Joe Biden.

                  2. Most people have already returned to normal except in raging leftie blue states where they keep the enslaved in line. Something a statist proto fascist like yourself wouldn't understand is that the rest of us got on with our lives. You're free to hide under a rock.

                2. Poor you Diane! Life is so hard.

                  1. Poor Joe, there is a high morbidity, low mortality virus in the environment and not everyone agrees with his authoritarian plan.

                    1. And yes before you deny it, mandates are authoritarian, especially when you mandate people inject themselves against their will. That is about as authoritarian as it gets.

      2. millions of Americans – literate and educated – have decide to get their science from their uncle, Facebook, or any number of crackpot hucksters, some of them selling something

        You mean like Dr. Fauci who once told us that AIDS was spread by close household contact and that there is no treatment for COVID besides a vaccination that we now know is only 39% effective when there are dozens of peer-reviewed clinical studies demonstrating the efficacy of multiple drugs, alone and in combination, that are so inexpensive as to be almost free, in order to sell hundreds of millions of doses of a new drug?

        You're right, White Mike, some people sure are a bunch of neurotic, stupid, ignorant sacks of shit.

        1. Thanls for that example of "Uncle told me" facts Lewis.

          1. Out of curiosity what wasn't facts that he stated?

      3. Like those public health experts who selectively supported Black Lives Matter protests?

  18. Why would I believe a damn word out of government or their propagandists these days? They've taken every position on every topic with no regard to the truth or the individual liberty and rights of the public.

    1. Social, the overwhelming number of scientists and doctors involved in epidemiology, as well as general docs - over 96% of them have gotten the shot - agree you should get the shot. Do you think they are all part of a conspiracy to ........... Wait! What is it they would be trying to do other than keep you from getting Covid?

      1. Do you understand the difference between being for the vaccine and being for mandates? God you are redundant.

        1. Yes soldier, I understand the difference. I am in favor of certain mandates.

          1. Of course you are. Because you are for loss of body autonomy and government inserting itself into your personal health decisions when it is your pet project but not when it opposes your pet view. Because you are a hypocrite.

            1. That's right soldier, I'm a member of the Hypocrite Caucus and it is our desire to insert ourselves into your personal hygiene because our idea of fun is watching you gag on a mask. How did you catch on?

              1. I am talking vaccine mandates and you dishonestly deflect to masks. Intellectual honesty a foreign concept to you?

                1. Lighten up doofus.

                  1. Says the guy that when he doesn't have a counterargument resorts to juvenile deflections.

                    1. You have to admire his consistency across all of his sockpuppet accounts.

                    2. soldier, the post i responded to was a mischaracterization of mine not worthy of a serious response, and so I made fun of you by sarcastically confessing to to the ridiculous proposition that anyone who advocates for vaccines or mask wearing is secretly queer for ....... I don't know, you tell me.

                      Mocking you is changing the subject I guess, so I guess you got me. It wasn't due to avoiding the imagined power of your ridiculous post.

                    3. Lewis, there's only me. Apparently your affliction includes paranoia.

                    4. No I didn't mischaracterize your statement. You want the government to mandate that we take a vaccine, that is an assault on body autonomy and a private health care decision. I did assume you are pro-choice. The reason Roe v Wade was decided was based on government interference in body autonomy and privacy of health care choices. The comparison is apt. If you are not pro-choice I made a wrong assumption but I doubt I did.

                    5. Pro vaccine choice.

                    6. soldier, I'm enjoying your argument with imaginary me. At least you can keep up that way.

                    7. My 3 yo nephew can keep up with you. You haven't offered anything particularly clever, intelligent or original. It is funny you think you have. Self delusion?

                    8. So if it is imaginary you, you aren't pro-choice? You oppose abortions?

          2. So if mandates are necessary for us regular citizens why isn’t Biden mandating vaccines for Afghani refugees and illegal immigrants they detain? I asked this the other night and you didn't answer. The fact is detention facilities and refugee camps are long established breeding grounds for pathogens. And anecdotal evidence (there is no government data they have released) 1 in 5 illegals detained are infected with COVID. With 208,000+ illegals detained (and more than that not caught) that is 40,000 infected immigrants that came in in August, which is higher than the current number of Americans with active infections. So that suggests if any group needs to be vaccinated it would be immigrants and refugees (Afghanistan before the fall had one of the lowest vaccinated populations in the world).

            1. soldier, ICE already has an aggressive vaccination campaign going on at the southern border, though migrants can turn it down and some have - not most or many - and dollars to donuts that will end and they will be mandated, as will Afghani immigrants, the only reason it wouldn't happen is because of legal hurdles. Is it your thinking that Joe Biden likes having unvaccinated immigrants roaming the country?

              We agree, they need to be vaccinated and by mandate.

              1. The same legal hurdles Biden managed to find a work around for the rest of us. As for illegal immigrants, they are by definition criminals in federal custody, and they can refuse? Let that sink in. Your answer is excuses not an explanation.

                1. soldier, none of the mandates are in place yet, and as fairly small number of people, these immigrants are probably not at the top ofd the lists based on th effectiveness of the policy, though certainly the politics, which is your interest. Do you not think there are both existing legal protections and legal advocates which will need to be addressed?

                  By the way, ICE takes their effort seriouslt and they have vaccinated multi thousands of immigrants. Google it.

                  1. By the way, ICE takes their effort seriouslt and they have vaccinated multi thousands of immigrants. Google it.

                    No, you're a lying piece of shit, and I just shoved this point up your asshole below. Retire it.

                  2. The estimate is 2 million + illegal immigrants this year (and this estimate is probably way to low if the pace continues as it has). That isn't insignificant that is a huge pool of unvaccinated, even if it is only 30% that refuse the vaccine. And if the vaccine was 100% effective at preventing infection, which it isn't even close. If the CDC numbers are correct it is 66% effective, if the Israel numbers are correct it is 39% effective at preventing illness.

                  3. Didn't need to, Lewis googled it and showed a significant minority, 30%, have refused vaccinations. That is a pretty large number.

                  4. Here is a tell when someone says Google it, what they generally mean is that they didn't actually do the research themselves but instead took their talking points from another source and didn't verify it.

                    1. “Just Twitter it” only works if you’re ENB.

              2. and dollars to donuts that will end and they will be mandated, as will Afghani immigrants, the only reason it wouldn’t happen is because of legal hurdles

                What possible legal hurdles could there be to demanding 100% of immigrants coming across the border are vaccinated? It it was easy as a scribble with a Pen and a call on a Phone to mandate it for all Americans working at a company with 100 or more employees, then it couldn't have been much trickier to mandate it for non-citizens doing an end-zone dive across the border.

                1. Use your imagination Diane, or are you joking?

                  1. No, it is a fair question and by your response we see that you don't have an adequate response so you imply defective intellect on the other person. It is such a puerile tactic and one you love to resort to when you can't counter a point. It is not the sign of someone with strong intellectual abilities or honesty. But it is a common sign of group think sufferers. Once you attack their mantra and dogma, they can't counter so they resort to sophomoric tropes and insults. It so very telling how often you resort to this tactic when faced with questions you can't answer honestly.

                    1. soldier, your insecurity - or something - leads you to spend more energy attacking me than discussing issues. I told you I agree with vaccination mandates for immigrants and I'd place a bet that the administration will move in that direction.

                    2. Attacking you, no attacking your inane, thought free responses. And it really doesn't take much energy. You basically made an excuse and are upset I called you out for that excuse. Biden doesn't have any problem twisting laws to mandate vaccines for citizens, but can't find a way to mandate vaccins for literal federal inmates (detained illegal aliens). Your excuse like most every excuse does not make any logical sense.

                    3. soldier, your insecurity – or something –
                      That something is I've discussed with you and you are here parroting the same redundant talking points we already discussed. And when those discussions didn't go the way you wanted you accused me of not being a real scientist Despite all my credentials and experiences saying the exact opposite.

                    4. soldier, I agreed with you that immigrants should be forced under mandates to be vaccinated. I stated that I think it only a matter of time before Biden attempts that and you stated no position on that. Then Lewis turned up an article supporting my statement that ICE was aggressively vaccinating immigrants on the southern border with most accepting them. You want to fight over whether 70-30% represents a large number of refusals or not, as if that subjective evaluation renders everything else I said unimportant or objectionable. You don't know WTF you think except I have to be wrong and a bad person. Your ego is too invested to have a real conversation involving ideas. See ya.

                    5. No, I argued that if it is such a crisis that we mandate vaccines it is counterintuitive that a large, known group of potential pool of spreaders was exempted and your assertions that he plans to is just that an assertion. And you said it was not many, you used a weasel word to imply the number is insignificant. You got called out for it and you tried to memory hole what you said. In other words what you are best at, intellectual dishonesty and projecting your own intellectual abilities onto others.

                    6. And I never said migrants should be mandated to be vaccinated. I simply asked why they were exempt if it is such a crisis?

                2. Diane, I am not an expert on the law or immigration but I did respond to soldier with the following comment, which i think is a reasonable assumption:

                  "Do you not think there are both existing legal protections and legal advocates which will need to be addressed?"

                  I agree that there should be a mandate for vaccinations for immigrants.

                  1. That isn't an answer it is an excuse.

                    1. I don't need an excuse soldier.

                    2. You can't explain why if mandates are so necessary migrants and refugees, that are under the government control, aren't mandated, instead you offered an excuse. And then you claimed you don't need an excuse. It is perfectly clear you do.

                    3. Also Joe is another lefty who confuses the difference between making a mistake and lying.

                    4. And before you get all bent out of shape over the problems I pointed out, that is how the actual peer review process works. In a peer review they would have been asked all of these questions. And more. It appears they didn't want to go through the peer review process. They didn't want to model their findings and instead just released raw numbers and tried to sound official in the way they presented the evidence.

                  2. You’re not an expert at anything.

              3. ICE already has an aggressive vaccination campaign going on at the southern border, though migrants can turn it down and some have – not most or many

                Why bother lying about shit that's so unbelievably easy to stick right back up your asshole where you got it from?

                1. Didn't bother to look it up myself but figured he was pulling that out of his sanctimonious ass. And I was right. 30% of 208,000 detained in August is 62,400. 30% of the estimated more than two million projected to cross the border this year is 600,000 (the number will be considerably higher than 2 million if the rate continues as it has during the summer and summer is generally when detentions are the lowest).

                2. Lewis, take your medication, OK?

                  Your article confirms what I said. Most are not refusing the vaccine and many thousands are getting it. 70% vs 30% turning it down.

                  1. No you said only a few. 30% is not a few, it is a significant minority. And is a pretty large population of that group. If we only achieve 70% vaccinations nationwide that is a population of 96 million unvaccinated. I doubt you would consider that number as small or just a few.

                  2. not most or many, your exact words. Most people would consider 30% many.

                    1. Let me predict what Joe's response will be, based on the progressive response algorithm. Something about make believe God.

                    2. Fucking squirrels.

        1. Thank you

          1. You shoves your idiotic non-sequitur of an appeal to authority up your asshole and you thank him. Hmmm. Maybe it's Tony.

            1. What's with the anger management issues here? A lot of you guys are just deranged.

              1. When you force people to take an injection or else, what do you expect except anger.

                1. soldier, I expect them to listen to reason - I provide them - and get their shot. There is no argument not to unless you have a medical condition.

                  1. So you expect them to listen to you, BTW, what is your degree in? I've asked you before. If you expect them to listen to you, I expect you to be a subject matter expert.

                    1. soldier I answered that question. I have an AA from a highly ranked public university, am a licensed builder of higher end custom homes, and for about 15 years ran a cow-calf operation on 135 acres in the south. I know how to read, reason, have much practical experience, including making payroll every week for many decades, and like to argue almost anything with intelligent partners. You are intelligent but too angry and rigid to discuss anything meaningful with.

                    2. An AA (still didn't list your field of study) So an associate of arts. So very little actual science education. You build houses. So you have practical experience in running a business not in science.
                      I have a MS in Animal science a BS in animal science, an associate's degree in nursing. Worked in medicine for 17 years (worked my way through college and used my GI bill). Run a cow calf operation. Have published many peer reviewed publications. I am a professor and I run a cow calf operation in Montana. I also freelance as a beef nutrition and health consultant. And I don't get angry. You read anger because you disparage any disagreement with your position. Nothing rigid about my position. You are the only one who appears rigid.
                      And so your quote was "expect them to listen to reason – I provide them". So you have no hard science background, nor medical background, your practical experience is running a business. And you expect people to listen to you on a medical science subject? I ask why they should listen to you? You lack the necessary education to review the scientific evidence. You lack the necessary experience to give a well thought out experienced based argument. Basically nothing, other than possibly running a cow calf operation, suggests you have any understanding beyond a layman's understanding, of the subject. Also, the cattle industry in the south has the highest death loss to communicable diseases of any cattle producing region in the US.

                  2. And the funny thing is your answer to their anger is, I expect them to listen to me. You know how elitist that sounds? And authoritarian?

                  3. I also noticed you left out religious exemptions. Let me guess, you think your opinion trumps their religious beliefs also?

                    1. Let me predict what Joe’s response will be, based on the progressive response algorithm. Something about make believe God.

                    2. soldier, I don't think that one should have special rights unavailable to other citizens because they are based on a belief in supernatural beings rather than logic.

                    3. Just almost exactly what I predicted you would say. You disagree with religion therefore you don't feel other people's belief in religion is pertinent and you also disregard the fact that religion is protected in the 1A. Once again, you are placing your beliefs as more important than others. You just dress it up with pseudo-intellectual words. And it isn't a right unavailable to others. Anyone can claim a religious exemption. You choose not to believe. That is your right. But it isn't your right to tell others that they have to break their beliefs to accommodate your opinion.

                    4. soldier, your statement is not logical and mine is. It is undeniable that granting religious exceptions is a granting of special rights not available to those not religious. If I claim conscientious objector status out of a political or ethical position, tough luck. If however I say God tells me not to kill others I can receive that status. Any exemptions from governmental requirements granted for religious reasons which are not available to those who also object but for ethical beliefs is the awarding of special rights for believing in supernatural beings. That's BS.

                    5. No yours doesn't contain logic. No one is forced to belong to a religion or not to belong to a religion. We all have the same right to believe or not to believe. What you are arguing is that since your religious beliefs don't oppose vaccinations you can't claim religious exemption. But no one forced you to have those beliefs (or lack thereof). You have the same right as everyone else to join a religion that opposes vaccines. And as was pointed out to you above, until COVID, vaccine mandates did allow people to refuse for ethical reasons. So what you really are arguing is that, unlike previous vaccine mandates, this one doesn't allow people to refuse based on ethical reasons. And currently doesn't allow religious exemptions either. So the current COVID vaccine only allows medical exemptions, unlike previous vaccine mandates. The courts will probably strike it down for that very reason. The courts have upheld vaccine mandates that allowed for both ethical objections and religious objections.

                  4. You provide nothing but talking points. And even those are piss poor.

      2. A quarter of the total Medicare budget is spent on the last year of recipients’ lives, with 40% of that money going to their final 30 days. Worse than those billions, though, is the physical and psychological pain that accompanies aggressive end-of-life treatment. Intubations, dialysis, feeding tubes, invasive tests—for far too many Americans, the last phase of life is spent in a hospital intensive care unit, hooked up to machines.

        It’s a terrible fate, as doctors only know too well. That’s why it shouldn’t be surprising that researchers in a new study in the journal PLOS ONE found that 88.3% of doctors surveyed reported that they would choose to forgo this kind of treatment if they were dying of a terminal illness.

        - Why Your Doctor Probably Has a "Do Not Resuscitate" Order

        As a medicare advocate, why do you deny the science?

        1. I agree mad!

          1. So are you in favor of mandatory DNR for Medicare recipients? I am just asking for clarification.

            1. No, I'm not soldier, I'm in favor of more accessible options for those of us who don't want to spend our last month on earth on machines.

              Is that OK with you?

              1. Even with accessible care you have a better than even chance of spending your last few months on a machine. Access has nothing to do with the reality of end of life care.

              2. And define accessibility?

                1. soldier, GFY

                  1. So you can't? I figured.

                  2. It is as I suspected just another buzzword you throw around without actually being able to define it, and when asked an innocent question you got all pissy.

      3. Actually, medical doctors have the highest rate of vaccine hesitancy, but feel free to pull more fabricated numbers out of your ass.

        1. Lewis, the AMA released a study about 2 months ago showing 96% of docs had been vaccinated at that point, with 1/2 of the remaining - that's 2% for those of you keeping score at home - planning on getting it.

          At the risk of setting off soldier, I suggest you Google it.

          1. The AMA is a volunteer organization, and doesn't represent every doctor. What I can find from Google is that only 18% of doctors in the US belong to the AMA and it's membership continues to decline year over year, and one of the biggest reasons doctors say they don't belong to the AMA is that they disagree with the political leanings and advocacy of the AMA.
            So 96% of a self selective group, long known for its progressive leanings have been vaccinated.
            BTW I did google it, and it was not a research it is based on a voluntary survey of paying members. It had a very small response level (301) almost half were general practioners (so not a representative group).
            The AAPS did a survey right after the AMA released their results. It had more participants, wasn't relegated to only paying members, and found 58% if physicians as of 25 June were not vaccinated. Which contradicts the AMA survey. This is yet another example of you taking a single source as evidence.

            1. soldier, the study was not limited to AMA members.

              "CHICAGO — The American Medical Association (AMA) today released a new survey (PDF) among practicing physicians that shows more than 96 percent of surveyed U.S. physicians have been fully vaccinated for COVID-19, with no significant difference in vaccination rates across regions. Of the physicians who are not yet vaccinated, an additional 45 percent do plan to get vaccinated...."

              Here is the study:

              1. I read the study. I am not questioning the study. It is exactly how I portrayed it.

                1. ROFLMAO! 96% of surveyed US physicians:

                  Sample size – N=301

                  1. We asked and 4 out of 5 doctors was vaccinated!

                    1. Be careful mad.casual, he will get upset if you question the validity of his sources, while he questions the validity of your sources and then label you unscientific and accuse you of only listening to research that agrees with you. How do I know? Because he pulled that shit with me three nights ago. He doesn't come here to discuss, contrary to what he stated, he comes here to spout talking points and then gets mad when people push back and accuse them of not wanting to have meaningful discussions.

                  2. It is even funnier, they paired with WebMD to conduct the survey

                  3. mad, the typical poll, meant to represent US voters, or somewhere around 150 million people, has 1000 respondents. The AMA poll of US physicians had 1/3 that number to represent less than a million Americans who are doctors. If the respondents accurately reflect the population they represent, or numbers adjusted where they don't, that number is more than enough for fairly accurate results.

                    1. Actually the AMA survey isn't a poll. A poll is a scientific modeled response. The AMA survey doesn't link to the survey questions. It doesn't list what model they used (it doesn't appear they used any modeling). It doesn't list what statistical modeling they used, or parameters for declaring what was or wasn't significant, but they ruled finding significant. There is no data for SEM or Standard deviation and no error bars.
                      The standard poll surveys 1000 respondents, then uses them to model a larger population. The AMA results are just a simple survey that doesn't appear to have been examined under any statistical modeling.
                      The WebMD physician panel is not a verified source. They refuse to say who is on the panel and how you become a member, but it appears that they automatically enroll you without your consent, and then, if you find out you can opt out. The only thing we know for sure is that part of the enrollment process that has been verified is AMA membership. The rest is a mystery but had been suggested it is as simple as combing on line yellow pages and enrolling anyone claiming to be a doctor.
                      It isn't a representative sample as it is heavily weighted towards primary care physicians, when PCP are only a 1/3 of all practicing physicians in the US, not 50% as in the survey

                    2. Additionally, if the poll of WebMD physician panel is the 400,000 they advertise, they got a response rate of 0.075% if they mailed it to every member. You can't extrapolate anything from that low of a response rate, without applying some form of modeling.

                    3. We have established you have an AA (not sure what major, maybe general Ed and don't mean that disrespectfully) did that include any statistics or research methodology classes?

              2. Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

                Holy shit, I haven’t seen a self own like that in a long time. Thanks for the laugh Joe.

            2. soldier, the AAPS "study" was in internet poll, in another words it wasn't a study.

              1. Oh so a study that was mailed only to paying members of a known advocacy group is study?
                Once again you rejected data that runs contrary to your narrative, while insisting others accept your data which has just as many weaknesses (as I pointed out above).

                1. And it wasn't even mailed it was emailed.

              2. And the survey used by the AMA survey was also an internet survey distributed by WebMD. LOL. Did you read the methodology section of the report that you sited before you responded to me? Because you obviously didn't.

                1. soldier, the AAPS survey was open to those signing in "anonymously" on-line on their web site, which means you could have submitted numerous responses yourself.


                  By the way, "The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a politically conservative non-profit association that promotes medical disinformation, such as HIV/AIDS denialism, the abortion-breast cancer hypothesis, vaccine and autism connections, and homosexuality reducing life expectancy. The association was founded in 1943 to oppose a government attempt to nationalize health care. The group has included notable members, including American Republican politicians Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Tom Price."

                  I.E, those responding were self selected by virtue of their submitting at the organizations web site.

                  The AMA survey was "AMA developed the survey questionnaire and WebMD programmed and fielded the
                  5–7 minute survey through their physician panel." not from voluntary and anonymous internet submittals. One can see from the results that representative samples were selected.


                  1. No it wasn't a representative sample. Also, the AAPS is a conservative group, the AMA is an organization accused by even many of their former members of being a progressive group.
                    So the biggest difference, besides the number of respondents, is that the AMA worked with a known dispenser of questionable medical advise that is funded by the pharmaceutical companies (WebMD) and sent their surveys to members only. So members of a known advocacy group is not a representative sample, especially if that membership is <18% of all physicians. It is a subsample of self selected physicians. So it has no more power than the anonymous survey from another known advocacy group. You are just believing it because it backs your narrative.
                    And oh no, Rand Paul, Ron Paul and Tom Price, all physicians, belong to the group. It must be totally bogus. Because they belong to the wrong party. That is what I take away from your including their names in your attempt to discredit the AAPS. I am not saying they are a good advocacy group, just listing the name of republicans to discredit them is pure partisan bullshit.
                    The AMA has also been accused of pushing pseudoscience. And WebMD has been outright busted for it. The AMA has been accused of throttling competition, has been accused of trying to limit foreign trained physicians from getting licensed in the US. Practiced segregation until the late 1960s. It is one of the top ten lobbying organizations in the US. It isn't a respected medical science organization it is a lobbying group.

                    1. soldier, your full of s..t. The AAPS sample was of voluntary, unverified, anonymous people answering a questionaire on a website with a political agenda.

                      The AMA sample was not only of AMA mebership and was run by WebMD physician's sample. As i pointed out, the sample is selective - as they are in legitimate polls - with 50% specialists and 50% GP, samples by race close to their numbers among docs, and by regions of the country on a representative basis.

                      I have no interest in discussing things with a liar.

                    2. Okay, I admit I was wrong on how it was distributed. It was programmed by WebMD and fielded by their physician panel. Okay, it is possible that they fielded it to more than AMA members. But it is still a self selected group. How large is the WebMD physician panel, how is it selected. And it wasn't a representative sample as only about one third of licensed physicians are primary care in the US. Not 50%. I just went to WebMD to find out what or who their physician panel is. It doesn't provide any information. It appears to be their panel of physicians that pay for their services. So the selective group is physicians who pay to get information from WebMD. So it isn't due paying members of the AMA it is due paying members of WebMD instead. So I was wrong about what group the members belonged to. That isn't lying. And I am not full of shit.
                      And where did you get surveys are only done by selective measures? Actually, both selective participation surveys and anonymous surveys have approximately the same power according to most social scientists. verification is a problem for voluntary survey results. But selective participation surveys suffer from selection bias. In this case the selection bias was for physicians who are members of a corporate panel (WebMD is a for profit corporation). Members of the panel cannot be considered a representative sample of all physicians (especially as WebMD doesn't actually list how you become a member. It does appear from their subscription page that you pay to become a member and pay to be advertised and pay for ratings. So, it is an even weaker group than AMA membership, as to become a member you have to pay to subscribe to the service. It doesn't list how big this panel is.

                    3. And I didn't lie. You just don't want to discuss this anymore because I showed you the weakness of your study. And your refutation simply showed rather than AMA members, they instead distributed it to WebMD panel. So my original argument wasn't wrong I just argued the wrong group. Go to WebMD and search physician panel. No results. Go to Google, since you like it so much and Google WebMD physician panel.
                      I did and it what I found is WebMD physician panel is not considered a verified source. They do no verification of their panels credentials. And one of the ways the select members is using the AMA membership lists (which they pay for). When they have been questioned by the media about the makeup of their panel WebMD has refused to answer. It is a large panel, 400,000 but apparently that is because once they add you you have to opt out, and you may not even realize you have been added.

                    4. So I did further research. And I originally surmised from their website that they use a paid subscription. However, looking into it further it appears that they won't confirm how you become a member. They do use the AMA membership list as part of panel. But after that it appears to be anyone's guess. It is not considered a verified group though, as WebMD refuses to say how the verify membership. It also appears, despite the size they claim, it probably has far fewer members than they advertise, as it appears however you are selected, you are automatically enrolled, and have to opt out. You may not even realized you were enrolled. WebMD has been accused of simply enrolling anyone advertised as a doctor, no matter what their credentials are, onto the panel. It also appears that the one group that uses the physical panel frequently is the AMA. Which others have criticized because of the lack of transparency. And the first rule of science is repeatability and for that you need transparency. We can't repeat the AMA survey because they used WebMDs secret physicians list to distribute it. We can't verify the credentials, we can't verify selection criteria. The AMA link doesn't link to the questionnaires and doesn't state what verifications they used in the questionnaires, i.e. how do we know that an actual physician, if the list is made up of only actual physicians, answered, or was it their nurse or receptionist answering.
                      Basically, as I stated, both surveys are equally weak.

                  2. Also, it is a single source that is contradicted by another source. I don't think either source is a valid source. The AMA is a political advocacy and lobbying group that primarily backs progressive policies, represents less than 18% of physicians, has until recently excluded DOs, and only allowed MDs, still excludes NPs and PAs, and has lobbied to restrict their level of practice. Both surveys suffer from a multitude of shortcomings.
                    The AMA suffers from a small sample size (301 out of their 240,000 members). Isn't representative. Is a self selected group, i.e. only sent to members. Programming was conducted by a Website that has been accused many times spreading pseudo-science, and is funded by the pharmaceutical industry.
                    The AAPS is an advocacy and lobbying group. Has been accused of spreading pseudo-science. Has a small, self selected sample size.
                    So comparably the two surveys suffer from almost the exact same number of confounding factors. Neither is reliable as a result.

                  3. Some other problems with your survey, from a scientific viewpoint. They didn't link to the survey itself (so we can't judge the questions, can't judge if they were data mining etc, what weedout questions were utilized, weedout questions are common in surveys of professionals). The methodology section is extremely short, and can't be repeated as a result of the abruptness of it. They don't list what statistical analysis they used, but state no significant difference. They didn't list what parameter they considered significance. They didn't list any error values or error bars. So basically this has no research value whatsoever except as a talking point.

                    1. As an aside, not that I am pushing or not pushing the AAPS survey, they do actually link to their questionnaire.

                    2. Also, this is how the peer review process actually works. I have been on both sides of the peer review process. I would have rejected the AMA survey because it is repeatable, it doesn't list it's modeling (doesn't appear to be modeled at all) makes unsubstantiated claims, i.e. no significant difference but doesn't list how they determined significance (what statistical analysis they subjected it to, what parameters they used for significance). It doesn't list standard deviation or SEM or error bars (another big clue they didn't model it at all). They refer to the WebMD physician panel, but WebMD won't list who is on the panel, and how they get on it and what their credentials to be on it are. I could list several other reasons. You basically have a survey were 301 people responded (out of how many were sent the survey) and they simply divided the number of yes over the total number of respondents. It's a raw number, not even close to what a poll is.

          2. And you don't set me off by saying Google it. It just shows how intellectually challenged you are and I find it funny when you do.

    1. quick hits: "I'm merely raising awareness" is an incredibly insidious way of describing "making everyone else think the way I do".

      1. The radical left absolutely adores their euphemisms.

  19. Who knew Ms. Minaj was a GQP Trumpista?

  20. Though the White House obviously won't offer to get on the phone with every American who has vaccine concerns—just those who have 157 million Instagram followers—their response to the testicle-deformation kerfuffle indicates that they still view persuasion as a useful tactic; perhaps they should've even tried persuasion for longer, staving off the impulse to impose federal mandates and incur the highly predictable backlash.

    It is the purpose of this book to explain the structure of the mechanism which controls the public mind, and to tell how it is manipulated by the special pleader who seeks to create public acceptance for a particular idea or commodity. Edward Bernays from the book Propaganda 1928

  21. Persuading vaccine objectors is a much better approach than imposing coercive top-down mandates.

    So you consider being banned from Twitter to be more "persuasive" than "coercive"? I don't know that I would agree with your definition.

    (Although the article didn't say so, I'm just assuming Minaj got banned from Twitter for spreading misinformation since, you know, that's a pretty major whopper and it's not like Twitter would let her get away with that shit just because she's a big celebrity.)

    1. Her follow-up comments about the politics part of this was a scream:

      Right. I can’t speak to, agree with, even look at someone from a particular political party. Ppl aren’t human any more. If you’re black & a Democrat tells u to shove marbles up ur ass, you simply have to. If another party tells u to look out for that bus, stand there & get hit

      Nicki's a hot mess, but damn if this isn't an accurate summation of Black America as a political construct.

  22. A few choice snippets from article on the Branch Covidian family who blamed unvaccinated people for killing their vaccinated Boomer relative:

    Candace Ayers, 66, of Springfield, was vaccinated with the Moderna shot in March along with her husband Terry before being infected with the virus. She died six months later, on September 3 at HSHS St. John’s Hospital.

    Quick reminder that the Moderna shot 1) has been linked to cases of myocarditis, and 2) the data out of Israel showed that 20% of people who got mRNA shots had no immunity after six months. Looks like she won the trash shot lottery.

    Her son Marc believes that his mother contracted the virus in July after she and his father went to visit a friend, whose husband died of COVID-19, in Mississippi...

    'We were responsible, we wore masks indoors, and were so happy to have received a full vaccine so we could exit this pandemic and move on with our lives. Unfortunately some of you bought into the political nature of this crisis and threatened the lives of my family.'

    "We followed all the rituals, but the rest of you weren't faithful enough and the glorious Vaccinia struck our mother down in anger." When Jesus came, the Vaccine Mothers went away.

    Following his mother's diagnosis, she was admitted to the hospital and was given antibiotics for her symptoms.

    She later returned a few days later and was hospitalized for a month with three weeks on a ventilator and developed sepsis.

    After suffering severe lung damage, the ventilator was removed and she passed away.

    Sounds like the hospital killed her, not COVID. I'm sure they blamed it on COVID to avoid the malpractice lawsuit for sticking a pipe down the woman's throat for three weeks when it wasn't needed.

    If you have COVID, don't go to the hospital. They won't treat you, they'll just put you on a vent because Vaccines Uber Alles, and kill you to get another tic on their tally board.

    1. Vaccine doesn't confer immunity. It's nothing more than a temporary symptom mitigation serum. Per the CDC's new definition.

      1. If doctors at this point decided to offer patients Flavor-Aid and say they died from COVID afterwards just to scare the public, it wouldn't shock me one bit anymore.

      2. Thought we didn’t regard the CDC as the best source for information.

        1. Woosh right over nazi asshole mike's head

        2. It’s not. But it’s fun to throw their own source back into the faces of people like Molly and Joe.

    2. Quick reminder that the Moderna shot 1) has been linked to cases of myocarditis, and 2) the data out of Israel showed that 20% of people who got mRNA shots had no immunity after six months.

      It's also been recalled due to contamination with stainless steel.

    3. They won’t treat you, they’ll just put you on a vent because Vaccines Uber Alles

      It's nothing as nefarious as that. Putting patients on ventilators yields an extra 20 something thousand dollars in CMS reimbursements, and physicians, despite what you may have seen on television dramas, are the same greedy, conniving sacks of shit as everybody else, not altruistic mystical healers.

      1. Something's got to make up for all the various medical procedures they stopped doing after they fired half their staff last year.

  23. Your girlfriend's birthday is coming up, but you are one of those who are wondering. Where can I get beautiful birthday messages for my girlfriend in 2021? It has happened to all of us at some point, and I have to tell you that you are in the right place.
    Thinking about it, we have made a compilation of some nice birthday phrases for your girlfriend that you can find on the net.

  24. So, me and my two oldest are vaccinated (my youngest is to young) and my wife was previously infected, so hypothetically all of us have high levels of immunity. School started three weeks ago. We all have minor head colds. So, is it COVID or just the normal school starts colds that circulate? Do I hold my kids home from school, football practice and national guard drill (my oldest son has drill this weekend)? Do me and my wife skip work, going to the store etc? And my wife is tested weekly at her job, but it generally takes >24 hours to get results. This is the part of the equation that seems to ignored by the zero COVID crowd, everyone mask, quarantine, vaccinate and we can eliminate COVID. We know that the vaccine isn't 100% effective and is better at reducing symptoms than at eliminating symptoms. But the symptoms are fairly generic. It could be COVID it could be the common crud that always circulates after school starts (and given the timing, both are plausible).

    1. Hey brother. First, I appreciate your efforts at trying to talk with the trolls. You make heroic efforts, but it's probably wasted time man.

      My family has experienced the exact same thing. First my son, then daughter, then my wife and then finally me. No respiratory symptoms, but a real shitty headache. And no fever.

      My work also requires a weekly test. I took it yesterday and it came back positive. I'm reading the email then send you. It was an Ellume rapid test. They admit to 37-75% false positive rate. How is this useful at all?

      At this point, I went to Walgreens for a standard PCR test.

    2. Btw, here is a quote from the Ellume email:

      The percent of positive test results that are true positives (also known as Positive Predictive Value or PPV) varies with how common infection is in a population. As the number of infections in the community decreases, the number of test results that are false positives increases. When the number of infections is low, false positive results may be more likely than true positive results. For example, if prevalence of infection in a community is 5%, 37 out of 100 positive results from the Ellume COVID-19 Home Test would be false positives. If disease prevalence is only 1%, 75 out of 100 positive results would be false positives. It is difficult to determine how many infections are in asymptomatic individuals and false positive results may be more likely if you do not have symptoms of infection.

      1. We have a fairly high IFR in my county because we have a reservation in our country and for some reason, reservations have had a high IFR since this began. We've had one of the highest IFRs in the state of Montana since this began. And funnily enough, on the reservation everyone must wear a mask, and most of them do. Off the reservation almost none of us mask, and the nearest reservation town still has a higher IFR than my town, despite most of that town shopping in my town and their kids come to our school. Another reason I suspect masks are mostly worthless.
        BTW the hospital-nursing home were my wife works went full lockdown as of February last year, all staff were masked and weekly tested and despite that over 50% of the resident got infected and over 50% of the staff. Again, this makes me question the effectiveness of masks and lockdowns.

  25. Yes, it's totally her personal choice if she decides to get a vaccine. The government making it illegal for her to earn a living if she doesn't has nothing to do with it.

    1. Get the vaccine or we will exclude you from earning a living is not a choice.

      1. It's an extreme no-brainer of a choice.

        1. Yes it takes no brains to think this will result in better compliance and not just more divide people and entrench them in their positions.

          1. So now I’m responsible for other people being stubborn morons.

            1. Like these morons?

              ‘We were responsible, we wore masks indoors, and were so happy to have received a full vaccine so we could exit this pandemic and move on with our lives. Unfortunately some of you bought into the political nature of this crisis and threatened the lives of my family.’

              “We followed all the rituals, but the rest of you weren’t faithful enough and the glorious Vaccinia struck our mother down in anger.” When Jesus came, the Vaccine Mothers went away.

              1. The willfully unvaccinated are responsible for countless deaths, yes.

                1. Eat shit faggot.

  26. "Nicki Minaj's Vaccine Hesitancy Tweets"

    Did you know you can rearrange the letters in "Nicki Minaj" to get "I jam in Nick"?

  27. Nicki, me and liberty. A Minaj a trois.

    1. Not bad. It may even get to +1.

    2. What did Lady Liberty ever do to you to deserve that?

      1. It might amuse her. She needs cheering up.

  28. Persuade who? If there isn't a medical reason and you're still not vaccinated, you're just a goddamn idiot, plain and simple. Probably the exact type of person who would listen to anything that Minaj says.

    1. Predictable troll is predictable.

  29. Moderna released some statistics on breakthrough infections to try to persuade the government to let them start recomming booster shots.

    People vaccinated last year were getting COVID at a 1.0% rate.
    People vaccinated this year were getting COVID at a 0.9% rate.
    People in both groups were getting hospitalized with COVID at a 0.03% rate. No one in either group had died.

    Medical researchers said there was no reason for healthy vaccinated people to get a booster shot. (only the immune-compromised)

    Third-world nations are begging for more vaccine doses since their vaccination rates are far lower (think 10% or less). I'll hold off on any booster until they get their's.

    1. "recomming" was supposed to be "recommending".
      The squirrels stole the "end".

      And what happened to the Edit button?

      1. What do you mean? There was never an edit button, you're imagining things.

        We've always been at war with Eastasia, too.

  30. My brother's cousin's friend is more of an authority on science than literally all the scientists.

    --Almost every genius here

    1. Here is what scientists said.

      The CDC notes that these estimates are “not predictions or estimates of the expected impact of COVID-19.” Instead, what is presented is listed as the “Current Best Estimate,” which will be updated as more is learned.

      The IFR estimate is broken down by ages, and does not include people 80 or older:

      Age IFR Estimate
      0-19 Years 1 in 33,333
      20-49 Years 1 in 5,000
      50-69 Years 1 in 200
      70+ 1 in 18
      *80+ not included

      1. Thank god, some data.

        Presumably you had a point to make. You may make it now.

        1. The point is that your vaccine is worthless, and hospitals are killing people by venting them instead of treating them.

          1. So is this a plan to genocide the Trumpers? Asking for a friend.

            1. Depends. How many unvaccinated non-white people died needlessly from hospitals killing them out of spite?

              FWIW, the white liberal genocide won't take three weeks.

      2. Might want to check the date on those numbers.

        1. Funny thing about that. The CDC stopped bothering to update.

          But you can take the total positive case rate today, multiply it by 4 (as the CDC did prior) and divide the total number of deaths by that number to get the “all ages” percentage.

          It would be helpful if someone broke it down by year though, so we could compare 2021 to 2020, instead of lumping both years together.

  31. I've never understood the deal with her nose...she looks like a duck.

    1. For some reason, I'd never noticed her nose before.

      1. Cause T&A brother. T&A.

  32. SO what if the guys n@ts got a wee bit swollen...I think she secretly got the jab cause her things are swollen....oh wait, do they have schraeder valves so you can pump them up at will???

  33. Oh, I almost forgot...

    You know who else was defective in the testicular area?

  34. This is a Way Great Science - Dating Simulator dating app video game virtual dating simulator video game mystic messenger chat time schedule stey by step by successful invitation of every guest

  35. "Nicki Minaj's Vaccine Hesitancy Tweets Show Value of Persuasion Over Federal Mandates"

    Does it show the value? I would argue no, as I will not be persuaded nor mandated to inject something into my body that I do not want. Period!! Gonna fire me? I'll go on the gov't payroll (welfare). Jail me? Won't be the first time. I am NOT anti-vax...I have been vaxxed for diseases that most Americans do not know exist (military service). I have no issue with necessary vaccines. This is not one of them.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.