The Midterms Will End the Pandemic
Seven out of 10 Americans say "it's time we accept COVID is here to stay and we just need to get on with our lives." Politicians are taking notice.

It takes a lot to make a libertarian look forward to the next election.
Like, say, two years of miserable government mandates ignored by some of the very people imposing them. Like watching over 70,000 maskless adults (and many celebrities) partying at a major sporting event in a city where children are required to wear medical-grade masks to school and keep them on while playing sports. Like imposing border controls on immigration and travel meant to stop the spread of COVID-19, and then keeping them in place (with no off-ramp) long after the virus is spreading here.
For once, we can be thankful that another election season is already upon us since politics is the last realm where the pandemic is dominating decision-making. The economy emerged from the omicron wave in better shape than expected. Sunday's Super Bowl was the latest signal that lots of Americans are done with the health theatrics of the past two years. But even the political class' commitment to COVID policy is wavering. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and President Joe Biden might be refusing to offer much hope that COVID-related mandates should be lifted soon, but they are increasingly being undone by rank-and-file Democrats who are looking at favorability ratings that are falling nearly as fast as COVID case counts.
In New York, for example, Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul announced last week that businesses will no longer be required to enforce masking of unvaccinated customers. California's indoor mask mandate will expire this week, even though some local governments will keep similar rules in place—Sunday's Super Bowl was supposedly subject to Los Angeles' mandate, though you wouldn't have known that from shots of the overwhelmingly unmasked crowd seen on television.
Schools are finally easing up on mask rules that never made much sense since children are generally not at risk of serious illness from COVID. Connecticut's school masking mandate will end later this month, and New Jersey's will follow suit on March 7. Delaware's is set to end at the end of March. In all three cases, the orders came from Democratic governors in blue states.
But a more telling example of the sentiment sweeping the country came from Virginia, where the Democratic-controlled state Senate voted 29–9 last week to let parents decide whether their kids wear masks in school, regardless of what policies local school boards might have in place. Given how closely support for mask mandates have mapped onto partisan alliances over the past year or so, that's a resoundingly bipartisan statement.
On Monday, the state House passed the bill as well, sending it to Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin's desk. He is expected to sign it.
Politics are always downstream of culture, and all democratic systems are ultimately grounded in the will of the people. In the American system, the people don't often get to make decisions directly—instead, elections act as a sort of feedback system for those in power. You can pretty much do whatever you want after getting elected, but eventually (every two or four or six years) you'll have to face the voters again.
The pandemic helped expose what happens when that feedback system is disrupted, as governors in many states seized on emergency power statutes to cut the legislature out of the pandemic-rulemaking process.
Some might argue that's a benefit, not a flaw. Government must respond to a crisis quickly and there might not be time for legislative deliberation.
That's true, to a point. Two years in, we're no longer in a crisis. We're in a situation that can be addressed via the regular functioning of democratic government. And when the system is allowed to work as intended, and policy makers who have to face reelection on a regular basis (as state lawmakers do) face the prospect of voting for or against mandatory masking in schools—well, just look at what happened in Virginia.
Or look at the polls. A survey from Monmouth University released on January 31 found that 70 percent of Americans (and 47 percent of Democrats) agreed that "it's time we accept COVID is here to stay and we just need to get on with our lives." The same poll found that support for vaccine mandates has dropped by 10 percent since September of last year, while support for social distancing requirements (like limiting capacity in indoor settings) was down 11 percent over the same period. Those trends seem likely to continue as omicron vanishes into the rearview mirror and warmer weather arrives.
Just 38 percent of likely voters view COVID-19 as "a public health emergency," according to a January poll from Echelon Insights, while 55 percent said it "should be treated as an endemic disease that will never fully go away."
Those polls and the looming midterms have Democrats searching "for a new message" on the pandemic in advance of the midterms, The New York Times reported last month. The party is "keenly aware that Americans—including even some of the party's loyal liberal voters—have changed their attitudes about the virus and that it could be perilous to let Republicans brand the Democrats the party of lockdowns and mandates."
Getting in the way of that new message, however, is the same tendency that's tripped up government responses to the pandemic since it began: engaging in social psychology, rather than simply delivering the facts and trusting the public to make their own decisions.
That's accomplished two things. Some people feel, probably correctly, like they're being manipulated by ever-changing government messaging and simply tune it all out. Others have adopted a devout, almost religious response to public health authorities' exhortations—complete with moral condemnations of those who don't feel the same way. Neither is ideal if the goal is to collectively combat a deadly disease and the predictable result is the heightened politicization of every aspect of pandemic response.
But they're still doing it. "We are moving toward a time when Covid doesn't disrupt our daily lives," an anonymous senior administration official told Politico last week. "But in order to get people to view the pandemic differently, they have to feel differently about the pandemic."
This might be news to the Biden administration, but most Americans seem to have already changed how they "feel" about the pandemic. Yes, even liberals and even residents of urban areas. Just look at all those cheering fans at the Super Bowl, blatantly and nonchalantly disregarding the rules. That attitude is now working its way downstream with alacrity. Some Democrats, like Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, were ahead of the curve, and others are finally getting the message.
It's possible that these changes in COVID policy are being driven by, as they say, following the science. Case counts are falling and the promise of warmer weather is right around the corner in much of the country. Maybe Democrats aren't playing politics at all, and are merely adjusting strategies as the circumstances dictate?
Be skeptical of that conclusion: Biden doesn't have to face reelection until 2024. The CDC never has to go before the voters. But state and local lawmakers are being more responsive to the emerging will of the people, who are increasingly indicating—both in polls and in their behavior—that they've had enough masking and restrictions.
That's the democratic system working as it is intended.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Are the Hong Kong flu and the swine flu still around?
The Karen Flu will never go away.
"Others have adopted a devout, almost religious response to public health authorities' exhortations—complete with moral condemnations of those who don't feel the same way."
Meet Joe Friday.
Oh, you can add quite a few more than just the one dunce. The scientism faithful are, not surprisingly, the same who insist that others have fewer freedoms and that there are more rules.
I make 85 dollars each hour for working an online job at home. KLA02 I never thought I could do it but my best friend makes 10000 bucks every month working this job and she recommended me to learn more about it. The potential with this is endless.
For more detail …. http://rb.gy/u603ti
Everybody is Kung Flu Fighting
Not me. I kicked its ass in 2019.
It was the gay guy character in the 70s Kung Fu flicks.
And as to this BS about " most agree now that Biden wants to back away to run," most of HAVE known it was time to give it up 1 + year ago.
Bidet just wants to project that the crowd is following him.
New bird flu strain is threatening poultry production in the Central US (one of our largest poultry producing region). Expect poultry prices, which have not risen nearly as fast as beef or pork, to begin to rise sharply.
Well, that fowls up my menu economy.
I wouldn't crow to loud about it.
the chickens must wear two masks.
I have to transition from wing night to Wing Knight!
It'll be a feather for your cap to crow about.
Not only was it never about the science, it never will be.
It will always be 100% about the political climate. So never forget that our fellow americans all demanded this bullshit for two years. Unbelievable.
no they didnt. it was demanded by FauXi and BLAMED on the people.
Thats how the psychopaths play it to blame us...
"the health theatrics"
Jesus
I prefer the term "covid theatre"
Covid Kabuki
Silly, Branch Covidian, the god you want to invoke is Fauci not Jesus.
Is Fauci a god or merely a prophet?
If you have to ask, off to
TorquemadaPsaki with you forre-indoctrination.
Fauci Christ, Superstar!
Who in the world will you mask tonight?
Is Fauci a god or merely a prophet?
I think you spelled profit wrong.
Fauci cares about $$$$afety
I know right? Ive been rolling my eyes at COVID theater for a couple years now.
Since most of the research now suggests that the mitigation strategies had little to no positive impact, and given the fact that most of the mitigation strategies were contraindicated by all available science on respiratory viruses prior to 2020, yes it was all theatrics. We told you as much in March of 2020.
Summary after 2 years of failure:
" but we made a difference."
Drink
I had to take my daughter in today as she has missed two days of school with an upper respiratory illness, and also had nausea and emesis at the beginning. I requested both a COVID rapid test (drive through testing didn't allow for the rapid testing and you had to wait 3-5 days for results, making it less than useful) and flu test. It came back flu. But when I was talking to our PCP, we were discussing how stupid the mitigation strategies have been the last two years and how all previous medical science had contradicted them to begin with.
She also agreed with me on my reasoning not to vaccinate my 11 yo (well she'll be 11 tomorrow), questionable efficacy in 5-12 yo according to the data submitted to the FDA for approval, low risk in her age group, no underlying co-morbidities, and the small but definite chance of serious risks from the vaccine.
hells bells Nell its been THREE YEARS '!!!!!!##!
Anyone not in total isolation at the #=/&##;;%%;\ North Pole has been exposed to it.
Why cant " they" process that?
This indicates SERIOUS mass psychoses.
Not being facetious... this IS how Nazi Germany evolved.
Mass Psychosis...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=09maaUaRT4M
Not certain why you felt the need to reply with this to the above post.
are there questions/ ideas I raised about the system that cant handle the reality this is all a scam that you cant deal with?
What the fuck are you talking about? Are you dyslexic? Or something else? At no point did anything I mention suggest in the least that I am panicking or even taking COVID very seriously. None of the questions you posted applied to any of my comments at all.
Further evidence that the restrictions were mostly about theater, politics and power:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-high-price-of-being-right-about-covid
However, I know the usual suspects will simply ignore the stories the story references because it is Washington Examiner reporting them rather than the NYT.
Uh no, what a dumb article. The pandemic will end when the virus goes down to low levels and that is not a political issue. What is ending is the measures to prevent the spread of Covid.
the pandemic was all a hysterical over-reaction led by fear-mongering lefty politicians and supported by terrified wine-moms and soy boys.
The pandemic was only a pandemic once politicians said it was; it will only cease to be a pandemic once politicians stop saying it is.
You are pretty damned naive to think it was a matter of science. You are even more naive to think that anyone buys your political aspirations.
Its "the science" just like climate change. Sad individuals
Covid is definitely a subject of science! Political science as opposed to biological science, but damn, it’s still science. And polls.
science and polls... but, mostly ... polls.
"...You are pretty damned naive..."
That's spelled S-T-U-P-I-D.
Not sure to which muted pile of lefty shit it's directed, but it covers them all.
The all deserve a rusty pitch-fork up the ass.
the pandemic will end when we vote democrats out of office
everywhere there is a red gov or legislature people have actually had their freedoms without the covid theater. And with the same or better results. Everywhere that is blue is full of mandates and neurotic sad anxious people.
sorry the top men you worship failed the country
All true.
Yep. Going in to a red state is a breath of fresh air, especially if you avoid the blue-voting, polluted, filthy, crime-ridden, socially dysfunctional cities.
Somehow we aren't extinct. I don't know how, but red state populations don't seem to be negatively impacted by the lack of rona restrictions.
Red states:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=grbSQ6O6kbs
Oh wait never mind.
We dropped our statewide mask mandates in April 2020. After 2 weeks, as promised.
Blue-leaning urban areas still have them.
We stopped paying attention to it in May 2020, but it wasn't actually dropped unt January of 2021, after Gianforte was sworn in as Governor, and Bullock was out.
Voting isn’t enough. They still occupy the media, the entertainment industry, the civil service, federal law enforcement, etc.. They must be purged.
The media is self correcting. Progressive media ratings are tanking. Progressive papers are bleeding subscriptions. Facebook and Twitter are hemorrhaging membership. As for Hollywood, it's always been a cesspool, but woke TV ratings are dismal, box office returns on woke/progressive themed movies are dismal. The free market will correct both these issues. Civil service is a much tougher nut to crack, but trust in civil service agencies is at an all time low and continues to declined making reform much more likely. We are in the early stages of a political realignment, and it is because all the agencies you noted overreached and stopped responding to their costumers desires.
I know Reason and many libertarians despise populism, but populism is the flavor of the day, and the momentum is likely to reverse the trends. We are already seeing some of the impact. AT&T spinning off CNN at a huge loss compared to what they spent purchasing it, and the growing number of lay offs of high ranking CNN executives is just one of these signs. The entrenched media will fight these forces, refuse to admit they need to change, or that they even have a problem, but as any physicist will tell you, overcoming momentum is a bitch. They can't overcome the momentum of the movement. Generally, once the ball starts rolling, trying to stop it just results in injury to you, without really effecting the momentum or direction of the ball to any noticeable extent.
Using history as a guideline, political realignments take time, but once they start are nearly impossible to stop. The first signs of this realignment started when Bush captured the majority of blue collar workers in 2000. At the time the experts predicted that this shift would have little impact on the direction of politics. By 2008 the TEA party began voicing it's frustrations with Bush and the elites in the GOP. They elected a slew of congressional members in 2010, 2012 and 2014. This was widely written off as to the impact this would have by almost all the media, including Reason. Then they surprised the world by using the power to get Trump nominated, to the surprise of the pundits, and then elected, to the surprise of everyone. Despite constant bashing by the media, including much of the "conservative" media, Trump nearly won re-election. Now the GOP can't ignore this movement in the least, and it has little room to even steer it much. The medias storyline is that Trump took over the GOP, but the reality is this change was initiated by voters and started back in 2000.
The growing signs are that the movement that started with blue collar whites is now starting to gain momentum with blue collar Hispanics and Blacks. It isn't any surprise that this is the same coalition that produced the Reagan era, which continued under Bush the senior and Clinton (after the 1994 election Clinton drastically tacked to the center and governed in a more in line with Reagan ideals).
With Clinton we started seeing the first waves of the current political alignment, with white, college educated, upper middle class beginning to dominate Democrats and the media. These voters favored technocrats and elites, deferring to the "experts" and relied heavily on credentialism. This momentum continued through 2000, and has likely peaked with the current pandemic. If you see overlaps in time, that is because there always is. The seeds of the next movement almost always are present as the current movement is ascending. This is the result of a two party system, with a good percentage of the population not ideologically extreme but centrist. Eventually, all such coalitions fracture as they gain power and come to dominate the discourse. The elites and party power players think that they control the movement, but the truth is that the movement controls the power players. What eventually happens is that the power players convince themselves that they understand what is happening and how to cater to it. This is their eventual downfall, as they tend to interpret the extremes as the target, which leads to unavoidable overreach. It is also generational, and isn't driven by the youth or the elderly, but by those in their middle years. The problem is that the media, and political parties tend to focus on the young to predict the next alignment, while ignoring those in their late 20s and early 30s, the ones who are establishing careers, who are establishing families, who are purchasing houses. The late teens to mid twenties are idealistic, have little lived experiences, are dreamers. We need to be focusing on the millennials, not on their prior voting patterns, or even what polling says is their preferred policies. Instead focus on what events have dominated their lives, what hardships and disillusionment is impacting them today, as they begin to establish roots. What threatens their stability.
If you look at Gen X, who are now in the mid 40s to 50s, if you looked at our voting patterns and values and preferences in our 20s, you would have predicted that we would vote dominantly Democrat all our lives. But we are the ones driving this realignment, and as you see the seeds of that realignment began appearing when we began to "settle" down. What shaped us in this period, what challenged our stability and success, what disillusioned us? 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, the "Great Recession" and the rise of the elite technocrat.
For millennials what has challenged them in their 20s? Political extremism, the rise of hyperpartisan and one-sided media, the Pandemic, high education costs, everyone needs a degree but those degrees no longer mean success, educational failures, the failure of technocrats and elites to improve life, equality, wealth inequality, race riots, cancel culture, identity politics, etc.
"The pandemic will end when the virus goes down to low levels and that is not a political issue."
As long as politicians are the ones who get to define what level is low enough to declare the pandemic has ended it will always be a political issue
this is what happens when too many women get into politics. A party governed by the hysterical
this is what happens when too many women get into politics. A party governed by the hysterical
absolute truth; very little is in reality absolute, but this is apart from that very little...
You're being facetious with this, right?
Does it offend your delicate sensibilities?
No, I'm just adult enough to understand that unfounded bigotry towards women is inappropriate and, honestly, exceptionally pathetic.
Apparently you haven't grown up enough to learn that yet.
The virus is leftist cancer
That is, the virus is leftists/cancer
The characteristics/definition of a pandemic is what the politicians in charge say it is at any given moment. It's not unusual that public feedback and polling changes how politicians define words and realign their values. Hence why last Sunday was the first time Nancy Pelosi said that defunding police departments is not a tenet of the Democrat Party. It just took her 2 years to say that because now shit's getting real and crime isn't as popular with victims and actual volters as they thought it might be.
Not to mention BIPOC, who are most impacted by crime, never supported defund the police, and are increasingly leaving the Democratic party, especially Hispanics.
Can't imagine why.
"Our polls report that the Hispanic community rejects the "Latinx" label."
"Well, sure. SOME of them. They'll get used to it."
"80% ranging from ":Hate it!" to "Ima cut your ass, gringo.""
"Huh. Well, we need to educate these Latinx people about false consciousness then."
"Uh no, what a dumb article. "
What part of Eric Boehm did you miss?
How low will the levels have to be to satisfy the Branch Covidians? I suspect that even if we actually do hit Zero Covid (which is utterly impossible) they will insist "but it will come back any second now!"
Biden said it in his press conference: It's not enough for Americans to get vaxxed, we need to vax the world.
Also, the deer population.
https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/covid-rampant-deer-research-shows-rcna10181
But apparently, the rest of the world can wait for their first dose until everyone here has their third (and maybe fourth).
Yes. This. In a pandemic, the best strategy would have been to vaccinate the most at risk groups. Then western countries should have aided impoverished countries to vaccinate their at risks populations. Then, and only then do you start vaccinating less at risk populations, and continue the cycle. Instead, rich wealthy countries vaccinated everyone, and didn't consider the global nature of the virus. This was either short sighted and/or proved that their vaccination program was bullshit from the start.
*Originally I just was going to type or, but realized that it could be both short-sighted and bullshit at the same time.
That's the best way to reduce death.
However it's a tough sell to your local population not seeing the economic and health benefits of widespread vaccination.
Omicron came from infected mice, so it's not like it would have knocked out the pandemic completely.
The chief problem is that the measures that would actually stop spread are too extreme and require to much sacrifice or arent creative enough (like requiring pharma make a new vaccine for the variants, and do challenge trials, etc, moving all activities outdoors, developing tests that breathing on it shows infection and putting them everywhere).
Instead we picked a collection of halfway measures to avoid economic damage that basically become mostly kabku (indoor dining with masks off at table plz) or just do a little against a extremely contagious virus. And people moralizing about doing the right thing (which was more about slowing spread than stopping it).
The pandemic will be over when it's actually over, hopefully with omicron, but ultimately we don't know what new variant will arise. We only know that leadership has failed at a lot of levels.
From the perspective of a worldwide pandemic, and as you mentioned it's zoonotic, you have to prioritize vaccinations on a world wide basis. The politicians and CDC, and other countries national public health departments, should have been sending this message out early and often. Instead, Biden and the Democrats sold a message that if we reach 100% vaccination in this country, we don't have to worry about it anymore. This would only hold true if the vaccine was effective for all variants present and future as you also alluded to. The vaccination regiment, as implemented, was about as effective as any of there other mitigation strategies.
The shots r NOT a vaccine. They r mRNA shots. U fools really need to stop playing the word games being put in front of u. Even the local pharmacies r changing thier signs over to the truth. As they r now pushing the free mRNA shot.
The Phucko Knows
Even if you label them therapeutics, my analysis doesn't change. Arguing semantics only matters if it changes the underlying analysis.
Or they will finalize realize that a bad flu year is almost as bad as Covid and decide that we need all the restrictions back to be "safe" from flu. Or the cold. Zero cases of any transmissible diseases for the entire world. Until then we should all wear N95 masks everywhere.
and then never develop any immunity, and be sitting ducks, like New Zealand.
New Zealand will at some point lift their restrictions. When they do, it is very likely they will produce a new variant. Australia is also a possibility.
Dude, you should run for office.
The pandemic is already over. It's endemic at this point.
And how well did those measures work to prevent the spread?
Surprised this response wasn't sooner. All measures employed appear to have been just above worthless.
No, the pandemic won't end, it will just become endemic. Actually, it probably already is endemic. Learn some basic science.
In truth: what a stupid comment. The pandemic has been endemic from the beginning, but for cowardly ignorant busybodies with a predilection for pushing their nanny state fever dreams on everybody else. You have been steadfastly ignoring the tiny fatality rate in your panic, and insisting that others cater to your irrational fears. All the while lying and bringing up bs arguments to support your viewpoint. If the world is so scary, stay in bed with a stuffed animal, you whimpering child.
What are these low levels specifically? What measure should we use to determine if we are at "low levels?" Can you give us some kind of useful benchmark? These questions are of course rhetorical since leftists like you have steadfastly refused to answer these questions. Come on, give us something concrete, not "low levels." I dare you.
Go to the CDC web page. The actual survival rate has hovered around 99.97% cense April of 2020. Deb Brix told everyone at that time that the powers to be would be CHANGING the death certificates from "dying WITH Covid-19"... To "dying OF Covid-19". Which increased these JUICED numbers to being FALSE by some 94%. That's right morons... Only 6% of these "deaths" were ACTUALLY caused by a virus. Funny how the TRUE CDC numbers of 99.97% survival and only 6% actual deaths caused by a virus.., r on par with the ANNUAL flu season. NEVER in the history mankind has such a f-ing hoax be perpetuated upon mankind.
The Phucko Knows
A far-too late admission that The Political Science has been driving the bus the whole time.
When the pandemic ends I will give 100% of the credit to Joe Biden. During the campaign he promised to shut down the virus, and pandemic management has been the second greatest success of his Presidency so far. (#1, obviously, is making his billionaire base even richer.)
#LibertariansForBiden
As always, on top of your game.
Still no arrests for the government officials who exceeded their lawful powers, I assume.
they should all be in jail. Every single one of them.
Nah, they SAVED us, so let bygones be bygones. Time to move on, old news, conspiracy, Roswell -------------->>>>> Hey, look over here at some shiny shit, we have bigger problems, might have a war, Russia Russia Russia, Leslie Stahl hasn't confirmed any of this, WaPo says it isn't true and FB and Twitter bans you from suggesting it.
Plus, under the new Homeland definition of domestic terrorism, you're THIS close to a GITMO cell for having just thought it... you, you HATER seditionistical transphobe.
oh no, I would lock up everyone equally.
File it with the Durham investigation into the Russia Hoax.
Unfortunately for everyone (including those whose seats are surely going to be lost in November), the health theater has been so relentless the past two years that there is a portion of individuals who have made COVID mitigation their raison d'être. And unfortunately a lot of them are Pajama Class influencers who are going to try to gin up support for continuing the cause.
November cannot come soon enough.
Along with Big Pharma and the media they bought. It will be interesting to see if these people allow Biden to 'end' the pandemic or if they will turn on him.
they can turn on him but he wont know who that is!
"Others have adopted a devout, almost religious response to public health authorities' exhortations—complete with moral condemnations of those who don't feel the same way."
As I posted above, meet Joe Friday.
I think he's just really stupid and lives for all things democrat.
He is definitely a scientism worshipper. He appears incapable of critically analyzing the data he cites, and is dogmatic in his recitation of it.
Almost as well as a Catholic or Lutheran can recite the Lord's Prayer, as we say it every Sunday.
Google, how many days to midterm elections?
Google says, "In 266 days."
The wailing and gnashing of teeth is a sight to behold and the emotional rending of masks, only to realize the horrors of what you just made them do out of angst and righteous anger. Paranoia is the new fun cult for mid-Millenial late-bloomers whose life contribution is 'to create awareness'.
Given the past trends in coronaviruses, which this pandemic has followed fairly closely, I give high chances that we will have another outbreak during election season. The question then becomes do they reinstate the restrictions or admit that for two years they kept the restrictions despite them being virtually worthless?
the barns burnt down. no putting the horse back in.
That doesn't mean that some may not try.
See How Friday below, MollyGodiva above and LS above.
Luckily, for the most parts the courts have agreed that the emergency changes implemented last election have been ruled illegal by the courts.
I've thought a few times about emergency proclamations and how to do them right. Of course, the real solution is that government would never have enough power for anything that emergency proclamations would matter, but that's about as useful as saying that no President should ever be so important that the government has to spend billions every year on Secret Service bodyguarding.
The trick, like so much else relating to government, is getting some accountability into the system. What I would propose is that executive emergency proclamations would only last until the end of the next day, and if not affirmed by 3/4 legislative vote before expiring, the executive is immediately removed from office and forever loses all access to the judicial system. House burgled? Attempted murder? Spouse empties the joint investments? Touch titties.
Then there's the legislature. How do you punish them for backing an unnecessary emergency proclamation? The same process, by the public. There has to be an election in one week, and another every month afterwards until the emergency proclamation has been lifted. The election not only determines whether the emergency continues, it also determines whether the past month was an emergency. If the public doesn't approve by 3/4 majority, the emergency proclamation ends immediately, and every legislator who voted to renew the emergency proclamation gets the same treatment -- immediately fired, and complete lack of judicial access.
I've read the constitution many times and I can't find a single clause that says 'except for whenever the leaders decide there's an emergency"
General welfare
Instate commerce
Those two now cover anything the fascists want it to.
True, there are cases in which it can be constitutional. The problem isn't so much that an emergency can be declared as it is the limits of what it can compel you to do and how long it can last. In the 1800s when it could take legislators 20 days to reach DC by train, horse, or mule, it was quite a different thing than today where it takes a max of 6 hours. No "emergency" action should last longer than 24 hours after which it can only be extended by legislative action for no more than 72 hours, and is not subject to just start from scratch. One notable exception could potentially be if the US is under nuclear attack.
The problem isn't so much that an emergency can be declared as it is the limits of what it can compel you to do and how long it can last.
The limits are the same as when there is no emergency. See how easy that is?
That's the thing. Government can basically do whatever it wants. The only constitutional limit is whatever government judges decide, and legislators have passed so much of that power to agencies and mayors/governors/presidents that all it takes is a proclamation and they can do whatever they want. A vote every four years is pretty useless generally, and even more so when you get down to individual actions.
Doesn't even take them 6 hours. If it were something so compelling, they could do a teleconference and pass legislation in an hour. Nothing is ever so immediate that we need emergency powers.
Exactly. They all learned to Zoom.
Even when the Covid panic dies away (except for the bitter clingers), many will look at this time as a template for further power grabs. I won't be surprised to see "climate change" or "gun violence" being declared "public health emergencies" which necessitate bypassing the democratic process and allowing rule by decree by "our betters".
^ this. they are already on it.
I think the Canucks are proving that to be a bad choice. The working class in this country can shut it down within 24 hours if they choose to. The politicians can decree whatever the fuck they want, but blue collar workers can cripple the entire country by going on "vacation" for 3 days. If people would have pushed back 2 years ago, this shit would never have happened.
They don't even need to blockade anything or strike. A blue flu would be adequate enough.
climate change will be next, guarantee it
wait until the next hurricane does some damage. they will be ready to pounce on it
I think it's a tossup. The Democrats are trying their hardest to blame crime on too lose gun control. Ignoring that until 2020, crime and loosening gun control laws were inversely related.
My money's on white supremacy.
"...I won't be surprised to see "climate change" or "gun violence" being declared "public health emergencies" which necessitate bypassing the democratic process and allowing rule by decree by "our betters"..."
Hope we've learned to riot in the streets the first day some tin-pot-dictator wannabe tries again.
The one and only good political outcome from this whole shitshow is the few state bodies that have introduced legislation to scale back their governor's emergency powers.
The feds have been bad, but the governors are the ones who have really made people miserable. A pity more of them didn't get the hook.
We don't even need to riot, simply everyone, or nearly everyone, especially blue collar, refuse to work.
Meant as a reply to Sevo.
I think of a declaration of war as being like an emergency powers declaration.
Suddenly, it's okay to kill people.
I don't see why we need any more procedures when the problem is that we're failing to use the ones we have.
They'll just declare war on COVID then.
Need to take back the federal government and declare war on the democrat party.
That was what the idea behind the governor only being able to declare an emergency for 30 days. That the governor could react quickly with executive rulemaking, but 30 days was enough time for the legislature to convene and address the emergency with legislation.
Somewhere along the way we went from executive rule making being quickest to respond to an emergency, to executive rule making being the *only* way to respond to an emergency, and that led the way for laws allowing for the 30 days to extended indefinitely. Fortunately we are seeing several states reining that back in, and hopefully the notion will last longer than the current emergency
It's part of a larger trend of the legislature ceding their authority to the executive. This works because doing nothing at all has a high reelection rate for legislators, whereas doing bad things does not so the incentive is to let the executive make as many of the decisions as possible.
Turns out if the governor screws up badly enough everyone gets voted out. The legislators are now realizing they're going to get held responsible either way so they might as well actually have a say in the matter.
See my post below regarding my idea on an amendment to recall federally elected officials.
I think public health proclamations should be banned. Now, declaring something like mandatory black outs during war? They are more valid, if and only if your opponent is capable of hitting you successfully from the air or the sea. And today, with guided missiles, GPS and IR, they probably aren't as useful as they were in WW2.
And even in WW2, blackouts really were only warranted in coastal cities, and really only initially. By the middle of the war, the axis lacked the ability to strike any allied city, and the allies had good enough radio guidance systems that blackouts by the Axis powers weren't very effective.
Grounding flights for 2 days after 9/11 seems exceedingly reasonable, then and now.
Yes, it was directly related to a perceived threat supported by available data and was done with a specific goal and exit strategy, i.e. new safety screening protocols. Of course even that was taken to far, as it resulted in DHS and invasive, but mostly useless, screening protocols.
Since the democrat party is now a domestic terror organization, they should be eliminated.
wrong, all.
Thats just a rewrite excuse to establish President as a dictator.
If its so damned important, the Legislative must take it up.
No time? Then its not important.
Implementing emergency orders such as grounding flights on 9/11 or emergency orders enacted on December 7th, 1941 were important, and given the nature of the emergency, waiting on them for the legislature was not a viable option. That being said, any emergency order should be only used and in force until the legislature meets, and should trigger the immediate recall of the legislature, if in recess.
"The Midterms Will End The Pandemic"
The pandemic ends when the case level drops so low that no one cares about it anymore, and we're getting there real quick.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/covid-cases.html
During summer of 2020 NY was sub 1% positive rates and they were still going hard.
The pandemic ends when the media and politicians stop talking about it.
We are at a tipping point where almost no one gives a shit about COVID (except those with mental problems; the left) and the vast majority are more concerned about how the left has destroyed the economy due to govt overreach.
Bloodbath this year in mid terms
Leftists need beatings when they get out of line.
That rate is zero. And we will never get there.
The shutdowns and mandates forever crowd will move the goalposts as far as they need to keep this going.
Even that is some creative goalpost-moving. "Cases" were not the original measure. Nor should it be. The correct measure is and should be "deaths". If you get sick from covid but don't die, then it's just another infection like the flu. Sure, it can make you miserable while you are sick. And yes, some people with compromised immune systems will die from it every year. That's not what makes something a pandemic. The fact is that the pandemic ended when the incremental deaths approached the same order of magnitude as the death rate from diseases that we consider a routine part of life. Now we're just waiting for the political class to catch up with what any thinking person knew long ago.
Deaths are even misleading, if the data is as questionable as the data has been.
false all.
The metric is how many DIDNT DIE.
The other numbers are statistically insignificant in context if total population and THAT is why they refuse to discuss it.
So in the majority of the country, especially the red areas, it's already over?
is so nice to see my previously temporarily insane fellow citizens realize politicians are not our betters.
The pandemic was ended by the virus a year ago.
What the midterms will do (assuming free and fair elections) is end the political posturing.
The party is "keenly aware that Americans—including even some of the party's loyal liberal voters—have changed their attitudes about the virus and that it could be perilous to let Republicans brand the Democrats the party of lockdowns and mandates."
Oh my, it's only branding. Is this a species of "Republicans pounce!"?
Yeah, the Repubs are "branding" the Dems as the part of lockdowns and mandates. It's totally not the brand the Dems built for themselves.
Fauci must answer for his crimes against humanity.
this.
And dogs.
I just read Robert Kennedy Jr's book about Fauci. It's thoroughly referenced. It's damning.
-jcr
●▬PART TIME JOBS▬●◄ STAY AT HOME & WORK AT HOME FOR USA ►Check it out, and start earning yourself . for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot Her Open this Site For Full Detail...........MORE DETAIL.
For some people it will never end. There is a class of dead-end fight to the last bullet shriekers who will never give up.
We are going to see masked up people now for the rest of my life.
The fun begins when the emergency declarations are rescinded, and the laws against wearing a mask in public are still on the books.
Anyone thought that part through?
Elaborate, please.
There are/were laws against wearing masks/facial coverings into banks. As the masking impetus evaporates, will the law be reasserted or will the feelings of a few people be paramount.
The convenience store by my house used to have a sign that prohibited mask-wearing, presumably to dissuade would-be robbers.
Now they have a sign saying that face masks are required. But I'm pretty sure it's still illegal to walk into a bank or a liquor store wearing a mask.
Yes, but we're now approaching the point where you can mock them for being stupid. That's a plus.
The maskers DID NOT like it during that brief window where the CDC said the vaccinated could go without masks.
Once given, rescinding power is very difficult and those that hold the power generally very resentful of efforts to curb those powers.
Some will no doubt structure the rest of their lives around this; as David Hog put it, "I don't want to not wear a mask because somebody might think I'm a Republican." They bask in misguided virtue.
"...it could be perilous to let Republicans brand the Democrats the party of lockdowns and mandates."
Has that ship not sailed, repeatedly?
I would think so, especially given the way the Democrats have so hastily and transparently abandoned mandates, the classic "rats leaving a sinking ship".
Has it? How often are the Republicans allowed to point out the historic fact that the Dems are the party of slavery without huge caveats about how, at some point the parties 'switched'?
In a few months, certainly before the midterms, it will be common knowledge that the GOP was the group that forced everyone into masks and lockdowns and it was Trump and his disciples who forced everyone to get the now dangerous vaccine.
Youre a pathetic LIAR.
Trump didnt force anyone. He suggested andcl left it at that
Your Boy Biden did that, asswad.
I think you missed the point completely. Read Azathoth's post again.
Down below he states term limits are a communist conspiracy, despite the fact that the first term limits imposed in the US were in the Articles of Confederation, which were ratified four decades before Karl Marx was even born. He also spends quite a bit of time making a semantics argument about the difference between term limits and re-election limits, despite the phrase term limits being so commonly understood that a semantics argument is moot, since there is no viable possibility of confusion on just about anyone's part. Semantic arguments are only important if the term/phrase is ambiguous, or there is a drastic difference between the two meanings. Since the phrase is so common the former condition isn't met. As for the latter condition, term can mean either the time between elections, or the time total served in office. Therefore, the latter condition isn't met either.
Yeah, I saw that. Real clown show going on down there.
Fellas, I'm afraid that horse has left the barn.
Doh! What QUT said.
Help me out. How can one A) even postulate that the left has been following the science given they have repeatedly ignored high quality RCT's in favor of polling to appease Karens. B) that republic isn't one leg away from collapse by people who claim those of us whom desire freedom are "racists", or insert adjective here. and C) the fact the 16th is still around despite the repeated violations and partisanship from this organization tasked with enforcing it? I really respect the publication, but please call the left out here for what they are now. Complete authoritarians. They don't even try to be reasonable anymore (and haven't in quite some time)
Biden will not be running for re-election.
Nor will 30 other Dems, by last count.
That's good, but they still need to be prosecuted.
Burned at the stake.
Theyre a Witch.
One of these is not like the others.
Stick with me on this analysis. I wonder if the case fatality rate would be as high as it is (and yes it is below 1%) if our population wasn't so inverted age wise. Evolutionarily speaking, stable populations tend to have nearly the opposite age distribution than what we have in the western world, and even to some degree in the emerging world. We have a higher percentage of elderly than young both because we have artificially extended life (it really hasn't been the result of evolution but because better hygiene and medicine), while birth rates have been decreasing throughout the world but especially in the developed world, were in most cases birthrates are below replacement levels. And considering how biased to the right, if age is the x axis, fatalities are, it is only reasonable to conclude that case fatality rates are higher because age isn't as normally distributed as what nature would suggest.
Additionally, we have come a long ways towards treating chronic morbidities that in the past would have significantly shortened life spans, and given the fact that most the deaths have occurred with multiple co-morbidities, I conclude that the CFR is directly the result of the modern world and would be significantly lower in a more natural setting, even without modifying for the factor of mass transportation. Without mass transportation, it is likely that the pandemic would have just moved more slowly.
i've been saying this (to myself) all along: the results of the 'rona at say less about the seriousness of the virus and more about how we've gotten much better about keeping people with one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel instead of them being full on dead.
Our medical system priorities quantity (length) of life over quality of life.
That is true. Anyone who has ever dealt with families during life threatening emergencies or with loved ones in skilled nursing facilities is well aware of this.
Close.
24 % elderly population.
The Manipulating Left used that for Fearmongering.
It had nothing to do with reality esp.with co- morbidities which were 80 % (?) of the deaths.
That is still more biased to the right than what you would see in nature. The bias should be to the left, with a larger percentage of young and a very small percentage of elderly, nearly a quarter is simply something not seen in healthy populations in nature.
Deaths are biased to those with co-morbidities and the elderly.
Soldier, this has been obvious for at least a year, and commented on by others, as Africa (and other largely poor 3rd world locations) cases are much lower because they have a much younger population.
This is of interest but of no practical usage unless you are implying support for cutting lose our elderly so the younger can continue to party.
No, but the implication is that mitigation should be targeted and not based on CFR, as CFR is inaccurate because of the reasons I listed. Also, even in Africa birth rates have decreased since 2000, and average ages have increased, thus even in Africa, the CFRs are impacted biased upward because of these conditions, just less than in the developed world.
And once again you demonstrate you can't extrapolate from the data given.
And if it's been so obvious for at least a year, then the constant drumbeat about CFR and deaths that you bang so loudly (including down below, when your own citation contradicts your supposition that the restrictions were and remain necessary) was even less scientifically valid. God, do you ever get tired of embarrassing yourself?
I'll come right out and say it: Every elderly person who was okay with putting children through what they've been put through for the past two years for their own sakes needs to die. Party? It's called living, something Gammy and Pop Pop have had plenty of time to do.
Yes, data supports this and Florida seems to have had the most successful strategy of targeted protection of the vulnerable elderly, unlike NY and Michigan, which just targeted the elderly, or California smothering everybody.
But expecting rational, methodical behavior from the government is... Unlikely.
So, I've decided that in addition to term limits, we need an amendment to allow voters to recall federally elected officials, short of impeachment. If enough people grow dissatisfied with their elected representatives, we should definitely be able to recall them. It would stop the nonsense were legislatures vote for or support stupid stuff in the first half of their terms hoping that voters will forget by the time they stand for re-election.
It really wouldn't result in much chaos as recalls success rates aren't that high. We could make the threshold to initiate a recall election a certain percentage of eligible voters within their district signing a petition. So for HOR it would be that percentage of their district, senators that percentage of their staye. For president, since we elect on electoral college, a certain percentage of state legislatures voting for recall.
How about the ability to recall non-elected officials, like Dr. Fauci?
Since they aren't elected I don't see a mechanism for that, unfortunately. However, career bureaucrats are often as big a problem as career politicians.
Tar and feathers on a beam in the river with their resume for a paddle.
Ah, advocating Communism!
Know where your " term limits " idea came from?
LEFT WING EMAIL CAMPAIGNS ABOUT 2001.
Also Communist Cuba.
That was the basis for the Bored Housewife chain emails floating around in 2001. Memes creating discontent and hate and division among " bored housewives" sitting home with nothing to do but read chain emails.
They also harvested email addresses...
Another favorite topic was spreading jealousy with the " congress should live with the laws they create."
No value there but to create political discontent.
If you COULD READ THE CONSTITUTION, TROLL, youd see that term limits are already there.
You want REELECTION LIMITS, IOW, to tell others who they CANT vote for.
Its a radical Leftist ruse to overturn the system and replace as many in congress with inexperienced idiots like AOC that they can manipulate.
Try reading.
CONGRESS LIMITED TO X YEAR TERMS.
Its in the US Constitution that subversives like you pretend to honor
Actually, the first proposal for term limits was in 1782, during the original constitutional convention. They rejected it, not because of it's totalitarianism, but because public service was never supposed to be comfortable, and was such a burden people would not make a career of it.
Actually, just googled it, and terms limits actually predated the Constitution, and were part of the Articles of Confederation. No surprise everyone's favorite pro-central government proponent, Alexander Hamilton was the biggest opponent to keeping them in the Constitution.
What a surprise, the guy who opposed state rights, and help author and push the blatantly authoritarian Alien and Sedition act was also the guy who opposed term limits.
And saying term limits is communism is about stupid and ignores the fact that most communist countries don't or didn't have term limits. China has term limits, but they were passed only in the 1990s as part of their liberalization of the government, and Xi is about to overturn them.
And considering our first form of government was a confederacy and did have term limits, and a confederacy is the furthest thing from communism as you can possibly, it appears all historical evidence disproves your hypothesis that term limits are a communist ideal. In fact, Marx didn't publish the Communist Manifesto until 1848 and the Articles of Confederation were approved in 1777, with debate starting in 1776, it appears that term limits predates publication of the ideas of Communism by more than seven decades. Additionally the Communist Committee was formed in 1847 by Marx and Engels, that means the idea of term limits predates even the thought process that lead to communism by 7 decades, and Marx was born in 1818, and Engels in 1820, therefore term limits predates even the births of the two individuals most responsible for forming the ideas of Communism by four decades.
In practice some people have stated that the first communist government, if not in name, but in practice was the First French Republic, which wasn't founded until 1792, almost two decades after the implementation of the first term limits in the US.
Additionally, the 22nd Amendment was passed in March of 1947, by the 80th Congress, which had a large Republican majority.
And even progressive/liberal Republicans were vehemently anti-Communist (see McCarthy and charges of communism in the Truman administration for evidence, also see the approval of the Marshall and Truman plans, both created to curtail communism).
It was ratified by 1951, at the height of the red scare, by the 36th state out of 44.
*48 states.
We didn’t do nearly enough to stop Marxism, and are paying a heavy price now. They are not compatible with freedom and must be eliminated.
But term limits, as the phrase is commonly known and interpreted has absolutely nothing to do with communism.
The only person who seems to be trolling is you, because you appear to be completely uneducated on the matter. And Cuba doesn't have term limits. As to your argument about term limits vs re-election limits, that is purely semantics, and while at times, semantics are important, to remove doubt, the concept of term limits, applying to how many times someone may be re-elected is so widely understood that arguing semantics is trolling.
Additionally, we have term limits (I will continue to use the common term as it is well understood) for the executive branch, but not for the legislative branch. As to your argument about voting for who you want, the power of incumbency, especially in primaries, is so strong, that most people actually don't get to vote for who they want. In fact, the more unpopular the incumbent the more opponents they tend to draw in primaries. This usually results in the incumbent winning with a small plurality, as the anti-incumbent vote is split between the opponents. For example, incumbent A has a 33% approval rate within their own party, thus they can be expected to capture 33% of the primary votes. If they have 3 opponents, that evenly split the anti-incumbent vote, no opponent will draw more than 22% of the primary vote. However, 66% actually voted to remove the incumbent. Depending on the makeup of the district, those that voted to remove the incumbent, 66% of their own party in closed primary states, now have three choices, vote for another party they don't support, vote for the incumbent, don't vote at all. If the district is heavily partisan, the most likely outcome is that the incumbent will most likely win the general election, despite being heavily unpopular.
Additionally, name recognition tends to carry more weight than it should. In recent history we have seen several legislatures lose their primaries and run a successful write in campaign, simply based on name recognition.
If you study the debate around the 22nd amendment, term limits for the legislature was proposed as part of the amendment, but the house removed it, because they wanted to in their own words, "make the legislature the dominant branch of the government". This was in direct contradiction of the Constitution, which makes all three branches co-equal. Of course their plan didn't work out, but that was their reasoning. It was rejected solely because the legislatures didn't want to give up any power. This is also the reason that the size of the House of Representatives hasn't been increased since 1922, despite the population being three times larger.
The lack of term limits, (I'm still not playing your stupid semantics game) has actually, along with the refusal to include an increase in Representatives as a part of repartition, has actually resulted in the government becoming more authoritarian, not stopped it from being authoritarian. So, in conclusion, not a single thing you posted resembles reality or history.
As for the part about bored housewives and collecting email addresses in 2001, that is so asinine that it is not even worth addressing.
Cuba has term limits! Fidel could only serve for a maximum of 100 years.
LOL.
Yeah, so did the soviets, Stalin eventually termed out, as did Lenin and Brezhnev, China did, Mao eventually termed out. North Korea has had them, all the Kims except the current one, have termed out. The lengths of those terms in every case was variable.
In fact, Khrushchev was the only Soviet Premier to be removed from office via means other than his death.
I suppose Gorbachev also left office without without dieing but when he left Russia was no longer a communist state.
Keep that faith in the system.
I'm sure it'll stop totalitarians some day.
Not sure if it will stop it, but it will make it harder.
One of the things I have reconsidered is the restrictions many nursing homes still have in place or that they have reimplemented. I always considered them a bit inhumane, however, I did accept the idea that they were protecting the most at risk population. On further reflection I don't necessarily agree that the benefits outweighs the secondary risks.
My thoughts on this is that average life span after entering a skilled nursing facility is between 6 months and a year. Yes, some live much longer, while others live much shorter periods. Given that, is it humane to deny them visitations by family? Visitation by clergy? Group activities? If asked how many people would agree to living in solidarity confinement for extended periods of time, if it will only extend your life by 6 months or even a year?
As rapid tests become more available (as they should have a long time ago, and both administrations are to blame for this lack, as many developed countries have had them available for quite awhile) protocols should be changed to allowing visitors after a negative rapid test, regardless of vaccine status. And of course don't do what New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Michigan governors did in the spring of 2020, in regards to nursing homes.
Only 922K deaths from COVID. We need to ramp up production and get across that 1M threshold. Let's show the world that America works (at killing other Americans). Of course, it's easy for me to say. I declined to volunteer for the COVID Death March and got vaccinated as soon as possible.
moron alert
No, deaths Adjacent to COVID. Put your fourth mask on, inject your fourth booster and shut the fuck up.
I say we just grant its wish and make it a statistic.
Did you wag your tail and sit pretty when your democrat masters gave you the jab?
Most of them died under FJB's watch.
Durham Report: Clinton Campaign Paid to Infiltrate Trump Tower, White House Servers
Still no story from Reason. Not even spin for Hillary.
"Spin the Bottle" for Hillary.
Yeah the midterms will also end the evolution of new variants in the massive new array of wild and domestic animals now incubating Covid. It's no longer a few bats in China or anything like that. This virus is worldwide now among humans AND among a FAR bigger population of nonhuman animals. This article doesn't once mention the massive new array of voting rights restrictions, and the blocking by Republicans(including Joe Manchin+Krysten Sinema) of restoring MLK's legacy the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Happy Black History Month everyone.
Yeah, we’re not going to federalize elections and legalize fraud.
Have never taken this "pandemic" seriously, and I'm in the primary age group affected by this Chinese Flu.
During the last two years, over three times as many people, per the CDC, have died of heart disease and cancer as from the Chinese Flu. Number dying of heart disease goes up every year. Yet we don't damage our society fighting the spread of these diseases. Apples and oranges, you say? No. While the Chinese Flu primarily kills the elderly who have comorbidities, cancer and heart disease cuts down people of all age groups.
I can't want for the fucking elections. Voting against every Dem incumbent who shoved all this shit up our asses here.
...as will former Democrats.
Time for the draconian restrictions to fight heart disease and cancer to start!
Make unhealthy food illegal.
Make all recreational drugs, alcohol, and tobacco illegal.
Mandatory daily exercise for everyone.
Ban going outside on high UV days.
No admission to anything unless you can verify your BMI is below 30.
Sleep monitors on everyone to make sure you get proper sleep.
We're all in this together!!
Amazing what a fringe minority driving a few trucks and honking in another country can do.
youre welcome.
I planted that seed 12 years ago or so...with a long haul driver
HAHAHAHAHA...
And the liberal retards crow about " influencer..."
Lift a horses tail and you see...
Joe Friday!
What did they do Diane, I mean besides shutting down some atuo maker shifts and providing programming for Fox?
Well, for starters they created an international kerfuffle forcing the White House to demand action. Duplicitous Ken Doll literally ran for his life and hid in a bunker in the US. At least one MP has been removed from office, Alberta Saskatchewan and Quebec are moving to lift restrictions. Duplicitous Ken Doll actually softened his rhetoric and at least admitted he 'understood their frustrations', it shut down "the busiest land-border crossing in North America", it made a mockery of the international press that literally pretended it wasn't happening until it was there, when those of us that don't watch the news knew it was coming two weeks prior (puts a smile on my face), a guy living in downtown Ottawa claims he hasn't slept in 14 days (puts a smile on my face even though he's lying). I could go on.
It also inspired similar protests through out the world.
And dont forget ..." sedition!"
They (Pres. Eyebrow) couldnt resist trying to frame this as J6.
At best its trespassing or something like that in either case.
I can’t wait for that little faggot Trudeau to burst out in tears during one of his press conferences. And to be clear, I don’t think he’s actually gay, just a weak little retarded faggot.
" soy boy' s the operative phrase.
Dude..., U literally live in an air tight box full of moronic ignorance. U r one GOD awful human pile of horse shit.
The Phucko Knows
I believe the Stacey Abrams photo was more responsible for these reversals than people know. It wasn't the hypocrisy that most bothered people, it was how genuine her beaming smile was. It showed that she and her leftist ilk felt unbridled joy at being surrounded my minions doing her bidding for nothing other than show.
Here you go Otis (and the rest of our reality denying posters here):
"The United States has recorded more than 1 million “excess deaths” since the start of the pandemic, government mortality statistics show, a toll that exceeds the officially documented lethality of the coronavirus and captures the broad consequences of the health crisis that has entered its third year.
FAQ: What to know about the omicron variant of the coronavirus
The excess deaths figure surpassed the milestone last week, reaching 1,023,916, according to Robert Anderson, chief of the mortality statistics branch of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics. The center updates its estimate weekly.
Although the vast majority of the excess deaths are due to the virus, the CDC mortality records also expose swollen numbers of deaths from heart disease, hypertension, dementia and other ailments across two years of pandemic misery.
“We’ve never seen anything like it,” Anderson said.
In 2019, before the pandemic, the CDC recorded 2.8 million deaths. But in 2020 and 2021, as the virus spread through the population, the country recorded roughly a half-million deaths each year in excess of the norm....
...Anderson said 91 percent of the deaths from covid-19 tracked by his unit were attributed directly to the disease. In the other 9 percent of deaths, covid-19 was listed as a contributing factor but not the primary cause.
The CDC documented 13 other types of non-covid causes of death that were inflated during the pandemic compared with historical trends starting in 2013. For example, since the start of the pandemic, the category of ischemic heart disease has recorded an additional 30,000 deaths beyond what would be expected. Deaths from hypertensive disease were nearly 62,000 higher than expected.
“The bulk of the excess deaths were a direct result of covid-19 infections, but pandemics have major cascading impacts on all aspects of society,” said Amesh Adalja, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.
He cited many health impacts beyond the coronavirus, including a sharp rise in drug overdoses as people with opioid use disorder struggled to get treatment or used drugs in isolation, and a drop in cancer screenings, such as mammograms and colonoscopies. The CDC previously reported that more than 93,000 people died of drug overdoses in 2020, a record number that far surpassed deaths from homicide and traffic accidents combined.
The CDC has found that 74 percent of covid-19 deaths occurred among people age 65 and older. Anderson noted that many elderly and frail people found themselves isolated because of precautions against viral spread. During the initial wave of infections, when the country largely shut down, the quality of care for the most vulnerable populations probably suffered, Anderson said. Deaths from Alzheimer’s disease exceeded the expected total by 66,000 during the course of two years, he said...."
Today's WaPo:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/02/15/1-million-excess-deaths-in-pandemic/
Get with the program, COVID is over. Why it's over on the downward slide of 2586 deaths with a 7 day average of 2402, whereas COVID wasn't over during the downward slide of Oct 6, 2021 of 2530 deaths with a 7 day average of 1811? WHO KNOWS! But one thing we do know, some mid terms are coming up and the dirty working class are a'gettin' restless.
So, we had 1,000,000 excess deaths since 2020, however, your own citation shows that a good portion of those excess deaths were due to the mitigation strategies used. Therefore, you are arguing the mitigation strategies worked?
Did you even read and understand your own citation?
And according to the CDC data, 3/4 of the deaths from COVID-19 had four or more co-morbidities, therefore the 91% were from COVID is bullshit. With that many co-morbidities, you can't determine cause of death.
Once again Joe Friday posts what he considers a gotcha, and once again he demonstrates instead he doesn't know how to interpret the data he cites. At some point you'd think he would be embarrassed enough that he would stop trying to post gotchas.
Thanks soldier, but I don't interpret difficult data like the article covers, I just read what the people trained to be experts in the field say, and he's quoted. He says you're full of shit.
What do you think of simple data like this (like everyone here except idiots like salted, you've been hiding from it so far):
In both red and blue states, new cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are being driven by the unvaxxed. Not much to "interpret" there, and even an idiot would conclude "I better get my shot and tell my buddies to do the same."
For the fifth time, you illiterate twat, blame the moved goalposts on "fully vaccinated" lumping everyone not current on their boosters together into a dishonest statistic eagerly gobbled up by Branch Covidians.
Wow, did you just unironically state that you don't interest the data yourself and then use the logical fallacy of appeal to authority?
Do you realize how much your post is a self own?
Even if the first part of your original sentence was sarcasm, your post is still entirely based upon the logical fallacy of appeal to authority, and therefore completely void.
Also, this post in no way changes the fact that your very own citation states that a large percentage of the excess deaths were the direct result not of the virus but of the lockdowns, that you supported. By focusing solely on vaccine status, and not understanding the underlying data that you keep parroting, or it's implications, you are ignoring the overall theme, the vast majority of mitigation strategies did more harm than good for the greatest percentage of the population (as pointed out above, the elderly are only 24% of the population, therefore all the mitigation restrictions were implemented to protect 24% of the population, while doing a huge amount at damage to the remaining 76% of the population). All those excess deaths for any cause besides COVID is the direct result of lockdowns and other stupid mandates. Excess deaths means they would not have died otherwise.
The quoted expert states the majority of excess deaths were due to COVID, however the health impacts of the lockdowns, including all non excess deaths, still haven't completely been tabulated, as many of the health problems the story lists are known to decrease life expectancy, but generally take several years to actually cause death. We will be dealing with excess deaths due to lockdowns for years to come. And almost all the non-COVID related excess deaths occurred in people who were not elderly, therefore the least at risk. So therefore lockdowns increased deaths among the least likely to die from COVID while showing no impact on reducing deaths among the most at risk populations. That's what you get for not interpreting the data yourself and just blindly trusting the experts.
There are a lot of excess deaths due to all the unhealthy effects of the restrictions: people forgoing exercise, gaining weight, skipping cancer screenings, etc.
The restrictions probably lowered the Covid death total but increased the death totals from other causes.
Actually according to the John Hopkins University recent meta-analysis on lockdowns, it only reduced the timing of the deaths. A six month lockdown only resulted in lengthening life by something like a couple of hours. The lockdowns didn't actually decrease the number of dead, but did delay when they died.
Yep, you democrats have rivers of blood on your hands.
So first off.... Your numbers prove nothing. So r u saying the virus is directly responsible for these deaths.... Or is all the illegal mandates responsible for the deaths? Secondly... Friday is the only person on earth who says a million more EXTRA deaths have occurred over the last year. Friday and his nonsense is WHY this purging of the fools in society has been put in place. Humanity can NOT move on to the Golden Age of Man... Without first purging the morons from society.
The Phucko Knows
Hate to be the wet blanket for all you celebrants deluded into thinking your ignorance has been finally rewarded, but:
majority of Americans still support mask mandates even as states continue to relax their rules regarding masking, according to a new poll on Sunday.
Masking requirements have long been a point of contention throughout the pandemic. The relaxed rules for indoor venues and schools come as COVID-19 cases in the United States dropped significantly since peaking earlier in the winter during the Omicron surge.
But the CBS News-YouGov poll found that most Americans still support mask requirements for indoor venues.
https://www.newsweek.com/most-americans-still-support-mask-mandates-states-relax-rules-poll-1678788
Move to China.
Masks today, masks tomorrow, masks forever.
Dr. Fauci demonstrates how to wear 2 masks correctly on TODAY
Is the CDC recommending everyone wear two masks? Not exactly, but you may want to start doing so anyway.
Because SCIENTISMSIMSING!
Article date: Feb 2021. Oh I remember Heyyyyyy Maskarena!
Trusted source. *drops microphone*
Double Masking receives support from Fauci, other experts.
EXPERTS! Double mask! DOUBLE MASK!
Reading the actual poll it's a bare majority support masking, and that number is only because Democrats so largely support continuing mandates, 85%. Support among independents is just above 50% and is supported by only 25% of Republicans. Given these numbers I suspect there is a strong geographic basis. As the story you cited doesn't link to the actual poll, you can't verify how well this sample was demographically representative. Additionally, CBS/YouGov is traditionally biased in their polling to the left. This doesn't mean it's false, just that there models have been shown to produce more leftward trends than other polls.
Interesting, isn't soldier, that the clown who wrote this article you and everyone else here has been partying over didn't give us the stats on what Americans - no, not political radicals - think about mandates. He said support for mandates went down 10 points but for some reason I just can't figure out didn't say what it actually was.
Anyway, in your thorough attempt to discredit numbers that trash the premise of this article - which offered none itself - you didn't turn as critical an eye to that with which you agree. You never do.
This is amusing considering how many times today I've had to correct you for your misinterpreting data that you yourself have cited.
A ten percent decline over a given period of time is adequate to draw a conclusion that mask mandates are growing less popular. Citing a single story about a poll, that doesn't link to the polls is still problematic for all the reasons I listed. Also, you are completely disingenuous that the author didn't cite the numbers, as the poll is hyperlinked and therefore it is easy to visit the poll he refers to, unlike the story you cited.
The only reason you think the author didn't state the numbers is because you were to stupid to actually click the hyperlink and read the survey results before you tried another gotcha. Once again, your attempt at a gotcha just fucking blew up in your face because you are lazy and you are projecting with your charge that it is me that isn't using a critical eye. The very information you state wasn't referred to took all of two seconds for me to find by clicking the hyperlink the author provided in the story.
We had mask mandates for two weeks.
While I believe that 7 of 10 Americans support lifting restrictions, I also suspect that some in that number are tired of protecting people that will not protect themselves. I know a lot of people that think the unvaccinated should not be allowed to over load hospitals. Or that feel unvaccinated should be charged higher insurance premiums. I think that some of the 7 in 10 are ready to release Darwin's principles to work as they may.
And most of us believe that you democrats are murderers for attacking any alternate therapeutic treatments outside of what you mistakenly call vaccines. Unless it’s a really expensive drug being pushed by the pharmaceutical industry (like Remdesivir). After the way you people attacked Trump and anyone else who even brought up treatments involving drugs like hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, etc., there needs to be consequences.
People like you are responsible for tens of thousands of deaths, and untold misery. You’re lucky that I’m not in charge of what will happen to you. As far as I’m concerned, any committed leftist is a murdering traitor at this point, and should be executed as such. So fuck you, and your recriminations.
YOU are to blame, not us. I hope you’re good at begging for mercy when the time comes. You sure as hell won’t get any from me.
So leftists are somehow preventing you from acquiring drugs (from these same pharmaceutical giants, of course, because you're stupid), and that's so bad you think you get to murder them outright. Have you ever considered professional help?
If the drugs aren't approved, acquiring prescription medications is nearly impossible. Do you stop to think before you post?
It's Tony.
I'm sorry you have to get a prescription to take a prescription medication?
The other dude is calling for politically motivated mass murder.
Deflection. Your statement was that thinking the left was keeping him from acquiring medication. Which is at least partially true as it is government bureaucrats that are keeping him from acquiring those medications, and the vast majority of government employees vote and support the left. Additionally, you state that it is large pharmaceutical companies that make the meds he wants to take. Ad the medications are generic, it is likely that the large pharmaceutical companies are not the predominant source of these meds, as large pharmaceutical companies tend not to produce generic medications, they ar usually produced by smaller companies. Also, the profit margin is much lower for older genetics than new name brand, therefore even if the large pharmaceutical companies were the main producers, they still would have a huge incentive to push new name brands over old genetics.
Finally, if as he implies the fact that leftist in the government did cause thousands of deaths by denying approval for generics, then he isn't entirely unwarranted in calling for their deaths. Death, at the federal level is an allowed punishment for mass murder.
You sound like a raving lunatic, and you're defending a guy who called for the mass murder of leftists. You're getting worse.
Did you actually condemn someone else for calling for political genocide and not have any blaring hypocrisy alarms go off inside your head?
I'm a pacifist. I'm for reeducation.
camps
Bullshit, but it got a laugh.
Your hypothesis seems to have no basis in reality. People don't stop supporting restrictions because others don't obey the restrictions, historically, instead they tend to advocate for harsher punishment for those who ignore the restrictions. See criminal law, especially drug laws, or environmental laws for examples.
Generally, as with the case of marijuana or enhanced penalties for crack, people change their mind when they see that their preferred restrictions result in more harm than they prevent.
Also, see the war in Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam. It wasn't until we saw how useless the wars were, and how unobtainable the goals, while casualties continued to increase, before people changed their minds on supporting the wars. More people supported Vietnam than opposed it until after the Tet Counteroffensive. It was only then that people realized the costs were greater than any benefits we may have gotten out of keeping South Vietnam out of the hands of communism.
soldeir, can you please clarify what you mean? If it is true - it is - that the unvaxxed are driving new covid cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in both red and blue states, what is the more harm those vaccines caused. We know they prevented multiple thousands of deaths, suffering in hospital ICUs, "long covid" cases, and self quarantining. Gee, they must have caused something really bad for you to say that. Tell us what it is.
First, I've already explained to you why the narrative that unvaxxed are driving the deaths and hospitalizations is wrong multiple times earlier today. Several others also showed you why you were wrong. To summarize, if the hospital rate is three times higher for unvaccinated, that means 33% of hospitalized for COVID are vaccinated. Using that data, even if everyone was vaccinated, hospital rates would still be around than 50% of current rates, as at least a third of the currently unvaccinated would still end up hospitalized despite the vaccination status.
Therefore the spike would still exist, just possibly to a lower extent than current. The spike is due to a highly contagious variant that the vaccines only have partial success at controlling symptoms. We also don't know how well they prevented death, or if they only delayed death, long COVID etc. They haven't prevented self quarantine at all, since vaccination status has no impact on self quarantining for those exposed.
As for what I mean by restrictions, that doesn't imply only vaccinations, but all the mitigation restrictions that have been implemented. The evidence seems to suggest that lockdowns were worse than useless, masking is questionable at best as to it's effectiveness, despite your prior citation from the CDC, which I also already addressed the problems with it. And your citation to laboratory testing that isn't supported by real world evidence, I've already addressed why that doesn't mean anything earlier today as well.
In fact, all the things you just posted have been addressed by multiple posts in the featured article from this morning. Yet you continue to post the same nonsense.
Thanks for the bullshit soldier, but I wasn't born yesterday and that is not an explanation, it's a conman's attempt at hiding data. The best you can do is "To summarize, if the hospital rate is three times higher for unvaccinated, that means 33% of hospitalized for COVID are vaccinated." Thanks but that means - here let me get my slide rule out - 67% of those in the hospital are unvaccinated. Hmmmmmm.
Let me explain it to you. Ready?
New cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in both red and blue states are driven by the unvaxxed. Get it? That means more unvaxxed people are catching it, getting admitted to hospitals, and then leaving them feet first than vaccinated people, even in states where the vaccinated greatly outnumber the unvaccinated. This is not good for people like you who have been claiming vaccines were a con. In fact, you've helped fuck up the economy, the country, and kill untold thousands of fools who bought that line. That's the data.
I assume you got that, but if not, sleep on it. It will come to you.
If you preach the gospel harder, it helps drown out the incessent buzzing of cognitive dissonance and actual science.
Don't you love how he is apparently so lacking in critical thinking ability that he didn't couldn't even figure out how to click the hyperlink to get the information he believes the author didn't provide? What a facepalm.
Soldier, whatever respect I had for you is shot after this pathetic post. I'll stand with my assessment of the writers manipulation of you and others here. I know it's hard to admit.
Night all. It's been fun kicking your asses, but my real goal is to get you to get your shot and tell your friends. Well not you really - lost cause. Lurkers are the target.
You fucking were proven wrong and yet you stand by your assertion. As for your respect, I don't fucking care as this statement you just posted proves that your critical thinking skills are so suspect that your opinion means nothing. Just keep fucking parrot data without understanding it. You accuse salted of following gospel, but the fact that I just proved you wrong and yet you state you stand by your post, shows you are the one following faith rather than science. Good God almighty, you are simply incapable of critical, independent thinking, you basically just admitted as much.
Salted, unlike the gospel, I am telling you a clear, simple, irrefutable fact that requires no faith, just a functioning brain, to both understand and draw a conclusion from. And yet you all avoid the conclusion while nitpicking and jacking off about Fauci and how poorly you snowflakes have been treated by the reality of a pandemic and modern science which brought us a fucking miracle cure in less than a year. Poor you! Your freedom to take a dump in the reservoir has been abridged! This fascism of trying to get you to take a shot to save your ass and help protect others must not stand!!!
Here it is salted: In both red and blue states - that's all of them salted - new cases of covid, hospitalizations, and deaths are being driven by the unvaccinated, even though they are minority almost everywhere.
You continue to be wrong. Even if all the unvaccinated were vaccinated, the hospital rate would be 55.1% of current rate. This isn't driven by the unvaccinated, it is driven by a highly contagious variety. The word driven implies that the causative factor is predominantly the lack of vaccines, however, if you utilize the data, you see that even if we had 100% compliance with vaccines, the rate of hospitalizations would still remain 55.1%. Given this it is not even close to correct to state that hospital rates are driven by the unvaccinated.
This is simple data interpretation. I have shown you below my work.
"You continue to be wrong"
No, the Troll using Joe Friday is a LIAR.
Thats what Trolls do.
And fools like you allow them to Troll...
Are you so dim or desperate to think you are responding to someone with a genuine point after seeing hundreds of Troll posts with no point but contradiction?
Daveca calling others dim after his countless posts above where he misreads and misinterprets what people wrote, and attacks them for something they didn't say or mean. Also calls term limits a communist plot, that only started in 2001, even though the first term limits were part of the original founding documents created in the US, decades before the founders of Communism were even born. Also, relies on personal attacks, but calls others liars and trolls, and unironically states others are desperate for attention, when he can't help but respond, even if he doesn't understand what he is talking about.
Also define unvaccinated. The data you keep referring to defines unvaccinated as anyone who has not received their booster at least two weeks prior to being diagnosed. This was never the definition of unvaccinated until within the last six months. In all other vaccines that require a series like the COVID vaccine, each shot provides some level of increasing protection. Some people acquire adequate protection from a single dose, while others require multiple doses for adequate protection. Take hepatitis A, a two shot series, or Hepatitis B, a three shot series. Some percentage of the population will have a positive titer after the first shot. But we give subsequent shots to provide the most protection possibly for the largest percentage of the population. This is why if you don't finish your hep B series in the recommended time frame you don't have to restart the series, you just pick up where you left off. Or you could elect to have a titer drawn to see if you have adequate protection. Thus it is misleading to label someone with only two hepatitis B shots, unvaccinated.
The COVID vaccine, from the data provided for the approval process works the same way. Which isn't surprising. Labeling someone with only one shot as unvaccinated or with two shots but not a booster, S unvaccinated, or even if they have had the booster, but less than two weeks after the booster as unvaccinated is completely misleading. Of the percentage of patients hospitalized, what percentage of them are truly unvaccinated and what percentage are just incompletely vaccinated? The CDC data doesn't provide this information because contrary to all established medical and scientific standards, they stopped recording that. Ergo, your citation can't even be considered scientifically valid. But because the experts you admit that you believe and don't question state it you except this number and parrot it. This isn't scientifically valid, but it is faith.
I know this for a fact. When I was first starting in nursing school I stuck myself with a dirty needle, I had had only two of my three hepatitis B shots. The doctor that performed my evaluation after the needle stick (pretty much SOP for a dirty needle stick) informed me I wasn't unvaccinated, I just wasn't fully vaccinated and therefore to check my level of resistance to possibly catching Hep B from the dirty needle (only if the patient was Hep b positive) he would have to draw a titer. The titer came back positive, which means I had adequate antibodies unfortunately since the regulations didn't allow me to skip my third dose, and I had to still take it. And then my shot records got lost while I was PCSing and I had to start my series all over again when I got to my new unit.
And just so we clear, 33% of 50% is 16.5 %. 16.5% + 33% is 49.5%, which is approximately 50%. So the vaccine wouldn't have stopped the spike, would still have stressed hospitals (most hospitals run at 95-99% bed capacity even without an emergency, anything below that they have to cut staff or run in the red). Deaths would still spike, the best you could say is that the spike would have been lower in magnitude. So no hospitalizations and deaths are not being driven by the unvaccinated, they are being driven by a highly contagious variant.
However, I realize that this is probably to difficult of a concept for you to understand. So, I apologize for taxing your mental abilities.
Once again the fucking point just sailed right over your head. It is obvious you have no fucking clue what I am even talking about, and have no fucking clue what you are emptily repeating.
Once more for you and the rest of the slow kids. If 33% of hospital cases are vaccinated, that means even if 100% of the population was vaccinated, the spike would still exist, the only difference is the magnitude would be half of the current number, at best.
Let me make it simple, if currently 33% of hospital COVID cases are vaccinated, and 67% are unvaccinated, that means that if those 67% were vaccinated, 33% of them would still be hospitalized. 33% of 67% is 22.1 %. 33% + 22.1% = 55.1%. So, even if 100% of the population was vaccinated, the current hospital rate would be at least still 55.1%.
There is two choices at this point, you don't understand how to evaluate the data you cite, or you refuse to.
And before you try and say that if we had 100% vaccination rates there would be less people susceptible, I have two points, which I have also already told you multiple times earlier today, as have multiple other posters. First, the rate of transmission is entirely based upon testing. As testing remains for the most part voluntary, the people being tested most likely have severe enough symptoms to seek medical help. People with mild symptoms or no symptoms are the least likely to be tested. Therefore, we can't make a valid conclusion as to how likely the vaccine is to reduce infection from the current variant. Second, data has shown that viral load is similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated.
Just another thought, people with little to no symptoms are the least likely also to practice self quarantining, meaning that they are more likely to spread the virus. Since the vaccine does appear to decrease severity, this means that vaccinated may actually be more likely to spread the virus than the unvaccinated, as their symptoms may be so mild that they don't practice proper self quarantining, and therefore are more likely to be in public while contagious.
And before you refer to the data originally submitted for approval, that data was collected primarily on the alpha and beta variants. The data on efficacy in infection prevention for Delta and Omicron has been entirely based upon testing.
You know he'll never read this, and will be right back to preaching the gospel tomorrow.
A+ for bothering to type that all out in relatively simple form though.
Whatever
You know you've lost when your only response is "whatever". It is 100% a sign that you can't rationally dispute the points made, therefore you have to resort to derision.
It’s an oft-cited but uselesx statistic, Joe. It includes hospitalizations and deaths beginning in March 2020, at which point the virus was far more deadly and NOBODY was vaccinated because there was not yet a vaccine, and there would not be one available for another year.
If you break things down and measure from the summer of 2021 forward, you get a completely different picture. And the further on in time we go, the less useful the vaccines appear to be.
But this is par for the course for the COVID regime. Cherry pick data and use it to create a misleading statistic to prop up your dying cause.
+1 Moderation. Most of the posters here have been trying to sabotage efforts to get more people vaccinated, which has now been proven from results all over the country to have effectively minimized cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. How they get from that they've been proven right is a testament to their disconnect from reality and even basic logic.
I have 2 clients that I have become friends with who are doctors who have been dealing with this for 2 years now. One is the chief ER doc in a large public hospital (and his wife is the chief epidemiologist for a large state U medical school who is oft quoted) and the other cares for ICU patients in 2 smaller hospitals in 2 different bordering cities. The level of suffering, even of those who survive, is off the charts and has worn them down. The ER doc described to me the crud coating the lungs of some patients, the likes of which he had never seen before. The other told me of a elderly guy who was just not going to make it after weeks there and while waiting for his wife to make one last visit (she didn't make it in time) he said "Please tell her she is the most beautiful woman I've ever seen and I love her, and tell her to get vaccinated." When she got there a little later she was of course moved by those words but shocked by the last request - they had both been adamant no-vaxxers.
I have two friends... Great source. I have just as many doctor friends who completely disagree with your friends. This is why anecdotal data is useless. God, one of these days you will learn to stop posting and embarrassing yourself.
Soldier you jerk, I wasn't winning an argument - been there, done that - I was relating true and interesting front line accounts to who ever reads them, but especially to Moderation, a reasonable and sane person in this wasteland of crackpots.
PS Your doctor friends can't possibly agree or disagree with the personal experiences of the 2 docs I discussed.
The disagree with their conclusions. God, are you that fucking dense? As for me being a jerk, you have insulted anyone who disagrees with you multiple times today, in just about every single one of your posts in fact. So, it is very rich to call me a jerk for using the same fucking tactics you use. Guess you can dish it out but can't take it.
soldier, I didn't post their "conclusions". I posted their descriptions of personal events and observations while treating covid patients.
If I couldn't take it I wouldn't be here. You don't like it because I punch back.
Which makes you anecdotes even less useful. Because no one who has been in medicine for more than five years hasn't experienced similar stories, especially the dieing old man, rather there is a pandemic or not. From my 17 years of nursing, I have at least 20 similar experiences. Posting on it as somehow proof of how important the mandates are is just playing to emotion.
It would be like me telling the story of coding a newborn of a 16 yo mom and losing it to support the idea that teenage pregnancy is a bad idea, and therefore abstinence only sex education is the correct policies (which I don't think). When you have to resort to emotions you can't support your position with facts. And yes, the story I referred to did happen in 2004 and I still have nightmares about it at times. It hit me especially hard because my own wife had had serious complications at the end of her pregnancy, and my son was only 1 month old at the time.
I was 29, and she was 26, so we weren't teen parents, just to clarify before someone makes the wrong inference. Daveca I am looking at you.
Most of the posters here have been trying to sabotage efforts to get more people vaccinated
Now that's just downright hilarious. Going for the classic Stalinist "wreckers" rant, are we? Kinda silly given that none of us here can honestly claim to carry any influence with the public at large.
In any case you're aiming your copy/paste arguments at the wrong people. You really need to be aiming them at the political and cultural leaders in this country who have been ignoring them from Day One. Did you notice that the Oscars not only don't have a mask mandate, they don't have a vax mandate either? Hmm why would that be--surely all of the enlightened progressive folk in the arts have their shots, no? Haven't you seen all of the Democrat pols who blatantly ignore masking rules?
Clean up your own shitty house first.
I'm not a Hollywood actor dipshit and the misbehavior of others is not an excuse for you to crap in the reservoir.
Get your shot.
First of all, I DID get the shot. I'm not completely convinced it was a wise choice, and the more you go on about it the less sure I am. But I am vaxxed.
Second, you've missed the point. The point is that this "sabotage" you speak of is being performed not by ordinary people but by people who are actually in the public eye--not just Hollywood actors either. Do the names "Gavin Newsome", "Eric 'holding my breath' Garcetti", "Nancy Pelosi", etc. mean anything to you?
You need to make your arguments to them.
Enjoy, I don't know them or otherwise have access to them. By our communications with others, including feeding false narratives, we obviously impact their thought and behavior. To have 30% of adults turning down a miracle of modern science largely because of beliefs in conspiracies is an unprecedented and dangerous failure fueled mostly by the internet, including sites like this one, FB groups, and one major network cynically capitalizing on it. Hopefully we will learn to use this mostly positive new tool without repeating this kind of nonsense based on reading only what reinforces it. It's new, and so there is that hope. We have had yellow journalism before and survived - "Remember the Maine" - but not self created like this one.
Why does your "miracle of modern science" not prevent transmission or infection, and why does it become ineffective in 4 months? Why does it give kids heart attacks?
Did you mean, perhaps, "miracle of pharmaceutical finance?"
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7107e2.htm
Now do AIDS, Fauci.
AIDS is a great example. When AIDS first hits no one knew anything about what was happening. As information developed society changed to adapt. This is a natural response to a developing body of knowledge. The Covid19 will have the same effect and twenty years from now we will look back and see things that changed because of Covid19. The same way I noted to my young dentist that I remember treatment rooms had spit sinks, that disappeared after AIDS.
Fauci's recommendation came long after doctors and scientist knew that casual contact transmission was bullshit, and that airborne transmission was bullshit. So, in other words, the science had already bypassed Fauci, but it didn't stop him from making stupid statements, or stupid recommendations. He has followed the same MO for COVID. He was quickly lapped by the science, which has consistently disputed his recommendations and advise, but he continues to make the same mistake he made with HIV.
Until Fauci pulls as big a boner as you did on vaccines, I wouldn't be claiming to know fuck about science, if I were you..
You're getting incoherent, Barbie Jack.
FOX News junkies' opinions don't count. They go to their wheezing deaths refusing to believe reality, because FOX News doesn't let them in on reality. Yet it's the New York Times that gets sued for libel by one of your proudest champions of freedom, Sarah Dipshit.
We have three actual problems right now, none of them being hygiene measures: climate change, the pandemic, and FOX News. I know of one we can take care of with a well-placed sinkhole.
Fox is the most watched news network, in fact more young progressives watch Tucker Carlson than either MSNBC or CNN combined. Fox beats both MSNBC and CNN combined across all age groups. Therefore, your attack against Fox News and those that watch it seem to be an attack against the most popular news agency currently operating. Additionally, the percentage of those that responded surpasses even Fox News viewership, completely demolishing your hypothesis. God, this is as embarrassing as Joe Friday claiming the author of this story didn't provide the percentage of those supporting masking, when it is hyperlinked in the fucking story. Are you two the same person? Or just have the same lack of critical thinking?
I repeat, the author of this article avoided telling you all that mask mandates are popular - though he pointedly said support was declining, the 1st hint he was selling something - probably because you can't handle the truth.
He didn't avoid telling you anything, he provided you with a hyperlink to the actual survey. That isn't avoiding it. You actually were just either to stupid to use the hyperlink or to lazy. And the fact that it's been pointed out to you that the author did in fact provide you with this data you keep insisting he didn't. This shows a complete lack of the ability to recognize and correct your mistakes. Since the inability to admit when you are wrong is proof of an inability to learn, also a sign of diminished critical, independent thought, the conclusion is that you are not practicing science, you are practicing faith.
"You actually were just either to stupid to use the hyperlink or to lazy"
No, option 3
Theyre TROLLS.
.They are online for the sole purpose of causing problems and contradicting.
Fools like you respond to them.
Thats called " enabling"
I did put it at the world's #3 worst problem, which suggests I'm aware of its reach. Ratings don't equal the truth, however.
I know as a stone cold fact that people who get most or all of their news from FOX News have had their minds so deformed with respect to reality that it's now a global problem. They are lying to you, every day, constantly. Anyone with half an education and a real news diet knows this.
The only other possibility is that the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, NPR, the BBC, le Monde, and countless other mainstream news sources are all the ones lying.
Have a little Occam's razor in your diet. It's how you figure out what's real.
Tony, which networks are not covering the Durham filing?
I just had to google to find a piece in the New York Times. Apparently this is today's daily FOX News outrage about something that's either a lie or old news?
Do you know that "news" does not equal "good for Donald Trump politically"? Do you even know that?
Do you think Trump was flushing top secret documents down the toilet at the same time he was tweeting about Hillary's emailz? I heard he tweets from the toilet.
You accept the NYT slant, without questioning. That says all you need to know. It isn't an old story or a lie. It is an active investigation, that appears to be gaining momentum. Of course, since the investigation proved Trump was correct that he was being spied on, and the evidence didn't support that spying, and was the direct result of Clinton creating whole cloth the Russia Hoax, which the NYT swallowed hook, line and sinker, and they won prizes for reporting on, the NYT is not likely to report this story straight, as it reflects very badly on them.
Your misinformed on politics as well as science I see. Here you go Soldier, here's the GOP led Senate Intel Comm Report from summer 2020 on Trump's collusion with Russia. Read it then tell us about the whole cloth.
"The Committee’s investigation totaled more than three years of investigative activity, more than 200 witness interviews, and more than a million pages of reviewed documents. All five volumes total more than 1300 pages."
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/press/senate-intel-releases-volume-5-bipartisan-russia-report
I see you deflect and sealion as hard with politics as you do with science.
Might be why your winning retort of "whatever" was so crushing.
Are you sure you can read that big technical report on your own? Shouldn't you check with an expert?
The pandemic ended over a year ago. The mid-terms will end the political repressive abuse of power by liberal Presidents, Governors, and Mayors.
There never WAS a pan- demic.
Look at the numbers then the definition of the word.
Then look at flu numbers. Do they call it ' flu pandemic?"
The Lying Left see control thru their lies by getting people to use their terms and responding to their dog whistles..
By definition, each flu season is a pandemic. Influenza is naturally endemic, but each new strain leads to a pandemic. And I guarantee I know the science more than you.
Liberty, tell that to the hundreds of thousands who have died in the last year form covid. I mean tell their relatives.
You should also know that the vaccines will help minimize the chance of you catching it, and make it much more unlikely you will end up in the hospital or croak from it. In fact, in both red and blue states, new cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are being driven by the unvaccinated. This is an irrefutable fact you can look up though most here just avoid it, with one dancing on the head of a pin trying to make the clearest evidence for how to effectively not get sick and die during the pandemic a side note to the usual bullshit about how unfair the mean men in Washington are.
Get your shot Liberty and tell your friends and family.
Those hundreds of thousands died despite a vaccine being available, and widely used in the most at risk population, which continued to be the overwhelming majority of deaths. Once again playing to emotions rather than facts.
And yet soldier, hundreds of thousands still died after the vaccine was available and most of them were unvaccinated. Truly a mystery - to you I guess.
Remembering that 5.5% died OF Covid, per CDC, we also wonder at the absolutely staggering increase in deaths not of Covid.
Myocarditis? Nothing to see here. Clotting? You can't make that stick.
It's totally normal to advise people not to shovel snow or risk a heart attack after a shot. Yup.
https://www.pop.org/insurance-company-raises-alarm-over-unprecedented-spike-in-deathsand-they-dont-seem-to-be-from-covid/
Pandemic over, yes.
Then the Grandstanding and White K ighting will begin.
How they protected us, thus deserve reelection.
Twill be hard to spin away Trumps success with getting the vaccines going. The two choices are turn against the vax or replay the broken records of Rusdian Collusion or J6 pr just OMB.
Itll just be tough to fly the Russian collusion flag with Hillary just being caught in real collusion with so many people sitting home watching the news.
Thats what losers do..
Believe what you want to dave, but get your shot and tell others to do the same. You know by now that in both red and blue states, new cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are being driven by the unvaxxed. Don't be one.
You just don't learn.
Whatever. I feel your pain, loser.
The midterms will not "end" the pandemic. It is declining already, because of vaccines, masks, and other COVID protocols. The responsible people in our society, who got vaccinated, followed other protocols and thus behaved like adults, have made this happen.
The pandemic that remains is a pandemic of the unvaccinated.
If the Trump cult hadn't politicized COVID and instead had provided leadership when it was needed, it would indeed be over now. Unfortunately, 900,000 Americans had to die instead. Of course, Trump never grew up...and many of his cult followers haven't, either.
+1 Midnight. This could not be more obvious though this site somehow doesn't get it.
Please seek help.
Here's hoping the mid-terms end the Gee-Oh-Pee and free up the LP to compete with the Last Kleptocracy Standing. Do we really need TWO looter parties imagining men with guns as the solution to EVERY real or imaginary problem?
So Democratic elections took the place of the US Constitution and anyone has to wonder why the USA has become a totalitarian nation.
Silly you. You brought a sheet of numbers and facts to a COVID-feelings party? The zealots have no use for that
DID YOU EVEN SEE HOW HIGH THE # OF TOTAL DEATHS IS?? AND IT'S STILL GOING UP REEEEEEEEEE!!!
/legacy media
Yep. Sadly, I realized last year that this isn't about data or facts.