Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Jay Ash]

I came into this conversation late

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/22/could-a-platforms-terms-of-service-defeat-legislatively-imposed-common-carrier-obligations

But I had a question that I am still curious about:

Greyhound Bus lists on its site on a page titled “Your rights & rules on board” that

+ Absolutely no alcohol, drugs or weapons anywhere on the bus (including in your under the bus baggage).

+ This is a stickler for us – no unruly behavior on the bus. No shouting, being loud, or generally disturbing the driver or other passengers. Just chill out, be nice and enjoy the ride.

Am I right to think that your point is that under common carrier regulations Greyhound cannot discriminate against the military, but can certainly impose specific Terms of Service that allow it to kick people off who break its rules apart from any regulations that demand no discrimination against X, Y, or Z?

So Twitter might still be able to ban anyone who generally acts like a prat and harasses other users?

How would that apply to people who are seen to harass others, or dox others, or spread “covid misinformation”?

[Armchair Lawyer]

It would need to be evenhanded.

So, doxxing is easy (and usually, but not always even handed)

But harassing (but only applied to some people) and spreading certain types of misinformation (while keeping other sorts of misinformation banned) would begin to look like discrimination based on viewpoint.

[Jay Ash]

So Greyhound bans alcohol, guns (and weed) even in luggage, these are legal substances to possess on some quite large percentage of Greyhound routes, but Greyhound bans them anyway.

My wiki law by google research seems to show that https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dry_county&&section=3 banning possession of alcoholic beverages by passengers of vehicles operating in interstate commerce (such as trains and interstate bus lines) would be unconstitutional if passengers on such vehicles were simply passing through the area.

So alcohol is a legal substance but not able to be carried on a Greyhound bus.

Can you help me understand why the alcohol ban given by Greyhound, a common carrier, in what basically amounts to a Terms of Service would not be viewpoint discrimination similar to:

+ banning of "covid misinformation"

[Gandydancer]

Obviously, Greyhound is banning alcohol, not any viewpoint on alcohol. And it has a legitimate business reason to do so.

In formal logic if you start with a false premise you can prove anything true. You seem to be attempting a similar exercise. Twitter is not by any reasonable measure a common carrier.

[Jay Ash]

> In formal logic if you start with a false premise you can prove anything true. You seem to be attempting a similar exercise. Twitter is not by any reasonable measure a common carrier.

It's really a tragedy of the internet that people like you see bad faith everywhere, so instead of informing, you merely come off like a jerk

> Twitter is not by any reasonable measure a common carrier.

Your reading comprehension couldn't be any worse. My posts are to understand common carriers but stated explicitly to leave the social media giants out of it.

But for what it's worth, we've had an entire summer of Professor Volokh making a very reasonable argument that social media companies could be treated as common carriers, and this is what I am trying to understand.

[Gandydancer]

LOL! My observation about formal logic triggered proof of your ignorance of the subject. I nowhere suggested that your ignorance was bad faith. But the ignorant do indeed see iniquitous accusations in every statement of unwelcome fact, as you did here, so there's that.

My posts are to understand common carriers but stated explicitly to leave the social media giants out of it.

"Explicitly"? You did nothing of the sort. You talked about Greyhound and its obligations as a common carrier, but you nowhere said anything that would, should I accept your imagined authority to limit me, order me to avoid noting that the question is irrelevant to reality, inasmuch as Twitter, etc., are obviously not, in fact, common carriers. Which it's a good thing, since mine was a fair comment on the futility of your exercise.

That Volokh is patently wrong about this is the exact point of that comment.

AND I answered your question.

[Jay Ash]

As I said, you come here with bad faith and terrible reading comprehension

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/09/30/thursday-open-thread-54/#comment-9131606

You answered in that thread PRIOR to your answer above.

At no time do you apologize for your rude presumptions, you just go on with a you mad, you triggered comment.

You may have something to say, but it is not worth putting up with the strain you place on humanity. Consider yourself muted

[Illocust]

Assuming things actually went down that way. Conservatives would be ecstatic and liberals would be furious. Twitters double standard is what has gotten them in such hot water recently. If they enforced the no harassment rule in a content neutral way, they'd likely not be on the chopping block, so to speak.

[Krychek_2]

It's funny, because I read leftist blogs too, and they pretty uniformly complain that social media is biased in favor of conservatives. So I guess it depends on whose ox is being gored any particular day of the week.

[Armchair Lawyer]

This will be good...

How do they claim social media is biased in favor of conservatives?

[Krychek_2]

By citing example after example after example of open racists and conspiracy theorists who aren't being censored, while at the same time citing examples of leftists who are.

This may surprise you, but confirmation bias is a real thing. Since you're conservative, you tend to notice when conservatives get deplatformed but not so much when leftists do. Leftists do the same thing in reverse.

I would not argue that social media is totally unbiased, but if you're looking for examples of censorship, you can find ample numbers on both sides.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Conspiracy theorists are often leftists...

But really the kicker is the number of Republican politicians who seem to magically be censored or marked as "misleading".... While I'm hard pressed to find a Democratic politician who is.

[Krychek_2]

Do you have Democratic politicians whipping up mobs into a lather over fraudulent claims of stolen elections, resulting in an invasion of the Capitol in an attempt to stop democracy by force?

Here's what I think is the central issue: You are arguing as if Trump and Marjorie Taylor Greene are just garden variety Republicans, no different from other Republicans, and should be treated with the same respect. Well, they're not. They pose an existential threat to democracy, as demonstrated on January 6. So of course they're being treated differently. So are the anti-vax nuts, whose antics are getting in the way of stopping a deadly disease. It's not merely that there is a difference of opinion; it's that they are posing a potentially lethal threat to the republic itself.

To the extent that social media treats them differently, it's because one January 6 was enough.

[Michael P]

No, we have Democratic politicians whipping up mobs into a lather over fraudulent claims of societal racism, resulting in dozens of deaths, billions of dollars in property damage, and an ongoing violent crime wave.

When was the last time a right-winger bombed the US Capitol? Why aren't you so fervent about declaring that the three or four leftist bombings of the Capitol were enough to justify censoring of Democrat politicians?

[Krychek_2]

I'm not privy to the inner workings of facebook and twitter, but if I had to lay money on it, my bet would be that the dynamic is the same as when there are squabbling siblings and a parent finally says, "I don't care who started it, just stop." There are leftists who have advocated violence who have been deplatformed too. So I think your real complaint here is that the deplatforming should have started earlier than it did.

Be that as it may, I'm happy they finally started deplatforming violence. Better late than never.

[Brett Bellmore]

In fact, I don't mind them cutting off violent threats, they were remarkably casual about permitting them from the 'right' people in the past, but they do seem to have tightened up in that regard. And it IS a category specifically called out as permitted in Section 230.

It's cutting short debates on medical issues, declaring political opinions "misinformation", and that sort of thing that pisses me off.

But, if somebody is discussing the fine details of 'NAZI' punching, by all means, bring down the ban hammer. They didn't used to do that.

[jimc5499]

You have that right. By the way who commuted the sentence of one of the bombers so that she could take up a job with BLM and buy an expensive house? It's a damn shame that Bill Clinton put a 75 year security moratorium on a report from the KGB after the fall of the Soviet Union. If we had really found out what he and Hilary were up to with SDS we'd have put them both in jail.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Do you have Democratic politicians whipping up mobs into a lather....

Hillary Clinton, Stacy Abrams, Kamala Harris, and of course, Nancy Pelosi...

Just remember...

"Ten years ago, unionists stormed the Wisconsin State Capitol, located in Madison. They wanted to stop a vote on collective bargaining reform. Thousands of demonstrators poured in by breaking down doors and crawling in through windows.

They were looking for Republican lawmakers. Many of the Republicans were guided by police into a tunnel which would safely move them across the street. A Democratic lawmaker alerted the mob and they met the Republicans and the police as they came through the tunnel.

The senators hid under stairwells until police could form a human wall to get them on a bus where the windows were shattered and the mob started rocking the bus.

Then Gov. Scott Walker received death threats and he said they promised they would “gut [his wife] like a deer.” Police found .22 caliber bullets all around the capital including chalk outlines of fake dead bodies etched with Walker’s name. Signs like “Death to tyrants" and "the only good Republican is a dead Republican” were everywhere.

Nancy Pelosi praised the occupiers for an “impressive show of democracy in action” and tweeted she stands in solidarity with the mob. Another mantra from the “protesters” was, “Don’t retreat, reload.”

https://www.theintell.com/story/opinion/2021/01/24/lte-when-nancy-pelosi-praised-storming-capitol/6656787002/

[Krychek_2]

I think the operative phrase here is "ten years ago".

And you gave a list of Democratic politicians without citing any examples of them whipping anybody up into a lather.

[David Nieporent]

He actually quoted, not a news story, but a letter to the editor. Which mostly made up facts, or ridiculous spin on them. Don't take it from me, take it from GOP congressman Glenn Grothman, who was a Wisconsin legislator in 2011:

Grothman, now a U.S. representative, was in his D.C. office when rioters broke into the U.S. Capitol.

Obviously there were some of the more outright violent people here," Grothman said Friday. "It never reached that pitch (during Act 10)."

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Nancy Pelosi praised the occupiers for an “impressive show of democracy in action” and tweeted she stands in solidarity with the mob"

Sounds like whipping them up and supporting it to me.

[Krychek_2]

Nancy Pelosi's after the fact statements is not the same thing as whipping them up so that they did it in the first place. Try again.

[Armchair Lawyer]

They weren't after the fact....

Check your time stamps.

[bernard11]

A.L. lies a lot, when he's not trolling.

[StellaLink_the dog]

Armchair Lawyer:
"They weren’t after the fact….Check your time stamps."

What time stamps? What exactly did Nancy say about solidarity, with whom, and dis she mention a "mob?"

It's not impossible that the writer, "John Ruby", was giving a fair representation of the facts, just like it's possible that Sad_Krakenhead is not a dope. Not impossible.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Nancy Pelosi
@SpeakerPelosi
@WeGotEd

@thelastword
I stand with the students & workers of #WI, impressive show of democracy in action #solidarityWI
9:57 PM · Feb 17, 2011·Twitter Web Client

By February 20, protestors had undertaken a physical occupation of the Capitol building,....

On March 3, police found 41 rounds of 22-caliber rifle ammunition outside the Wisconsin state Capitol.

On Thursday, March 10, the Wisconsin Assembly passed.....Shortly afterwards, hundreds of protesters gathered outside the locked entrance to the Capitol, chanting "Break down the door!" and "General strike!"

[StellaLink_the dog]

So, the point is that Pelosi's comments were made before the WI protests got nasty. Ok, sounds good to me.

[jimc5499]

That shit again?

Yes Democrat politicians whip up mobs into a lather. Then when they assault, pillage and burn they call it a peaceful protest and their media lapdogs back them up. Krychek_2 blow it out your ass.

[Krychek_2]

Can you give us examples?

[StellaLink_the dog]

Sure, there are some Democrats in congress who have less than a firm grip on reality, and some who make some pretty bizarre and reprehensible statements, but compared to the likes of MTG or Boebert or Cawthorn or Gaetz, there are no Democrats that are even close to as loopy. I can't think of a Democrat in congress who is even close to Ted Cruz (the Canadian named Rafael) on the whacko scale. And, who on the Republican side is nearly as cogent and intellectually thoughtful as Colorado's Michael Bennet?

And for social media bans, who on the left is as great a liar and conspiracy monger as Alex Jones or as odious as Milo Yiannopoulos from Breitbart?

[Absaroka]

Well, you gotta admit Hank Johnson worrying that Guam might capsize is right up there.

(And he's been re-elected many times since then!!)

[bernard11]

Well, you gotta admit Hank Johnson worrying that Guam might capsize is right up there.

Sure. And Mo Brooks is right there with him claiming that sea level rises are due to soil erosion.

And Gaetz and Gohmert are right there every time they open their mouths.

[Absaroka]

"Mo Brooks is right there with him claiming that sea level rises are due to soil erosion."

Yowsa, yep, that's a contender all right. I'll add it to the collection!

Seriously, though, what's gone wrong that we send people that stupid to Washington? And both have been re-elected multiple times.

The founding fathers, whether you agree with everything they did or not, come across as serious men from the right side of the wisdom distribution. Hank and Mo (and ...) seem to be drawn from a couple/three standard deviations to the left of the mean. What are we doing wrong that we elect (and re-elect!) such people?

[jb]

But really the kicker is the number of Republican politicians who seem to magically be censored or marked as “misleading”

While it's true that it happens much more rarely to Democrats (it does happen--e.g., Dena Grayson had some of her Tweets flagged), the implication that it's widespread with Republicans is incorrect. It's mostly Trump and MTG, and the number of other Republican politicians that have actually been "censored" by Twitter is about 5. We might get up into the range of a couple of dozen if we look at misinformation tags, but importantly it's only a handful of anyone's posts, so the vast majority of any politicians postings propagate with no restrictions.

Compare that to the incredible propagation of conservative messages across all social media platforms and the argument that conservative voices are being systematically suppressed looks pretty silly.

[bernard11]

Republicans lie a lot - a lot.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Feel free to look up the timing yourself...

[IPLawyer]

The fact that many prominent conservatives do not have their accounts deleted despite repeatedly violating the terms of service? Is that not perfectly friggin' obvious?

[Brett Bellmore]

Generally, Republicans complain of bias because they're censored, and Democrats complain of bias because Republicans aren't censored enough. IOW, it's not just a question of whose ox is being gored, but of the parties having an absurdly different idea of what constitutes an ox being gored.

Remember, silence is violence, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem, and so forth, ad nauseum. The left takes the position that you fight with them, or you're the enemy.

From that perspective, social media is biased in favor of conservatives by virtue of not attacking them aggressively enough. That's literally what they mean by bias here, not what a normal person would consider to be bias.

Heck the media were in the tank for Trump, didn't you know? Because they didn't wear suicide vests to his press conferences, and rush the podium...

[Krychek_2]

But mainstream Republicans aren't being censored. To my knowledge, nobody has been deplatformed for opposing raising the debt ceiling, or supporting the new voter laws in Georgia and Texas, or saying Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

The people who are being censored are the ones spreading misinformation about vaccines and advocating and organizing violence.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, and the IRS wasn't targeting 'mainstream' Republicans, either. That's why the Republican establishment didn't really get pissed off about the IRS targeting scandal: It was their own internal enemies being targeted.

Most of this stuff is actually the "uniparty" defending itself against challengers. It's just directed more at Republicans because the Republican establishment draws more challengers than the Democratic establishment on account of being more out of synch with their voter base than the Democrats are.

But it's really the political establishment vs challengers to that establishment.

[Krychek_2]

But they're not being targeted for not being mainstream. They're being targeted for advocating violence and spreading anti-vax nonsense. There are probably lots of non-mainstream Republicans who aren't being censored.

[Brett Bellmore]

When I was still active on Facebook, I was a member of a private group, where we'd discuss politics, (Keeping the recipes and cat videos for our public timelines.) I assure you that none of us were fire breathing revolutionaries, but we still had FB's roving censors drop by repeatedly to take down posts and occasionally lock the group for comments nobody who should have ever seen them found even the slightest bit offensive.

And "advocating violence" and "anti-vax nonsense"? One of these things is not like the other. You had Antefa openly discussing plans to assault people, and you had genuine medical researchers discussing whether vaccine rollout plans made medical sense, and they were equivalent?

[StellaLink_the dog]

'And “advocating violence” and “anti-vax nonsense”? One of these things is not like the other. You had Antefa openly discussing plans to assault people, and you had genuine medical researchers discussing whether vaccine rollout plans made medical sense, and they were equivalent?'

Which platform(s) are you referencing?

Who is "Antefa" and exactly what did "Antefa" say? If "Antefa" actually openly discussed plans to assualt people and were not disciplined, well, they should have been.

Whare are the "genuine medical researchers discussing whether vaccine rollout plans made medical sense". Does "genuine" include wankers like Scott Atlas and Michael Caputo's dogs?

[Randal]

That happens all the time to left-wing FB groups and posters too. You aren't special.

[jb]

"Generally, Republicans complain of bias because they’re censored, and Democrats complain of bias because Republicans aren’t censored enough."

Both of those complaints exist, but it turns out that some people on the left also complain about being censored and think the platforms are unfairly forgiving of Republican speech. And it's possible to use confirmation bias to support this position just as it's possible to use confirmation bias to support the notion that conservatives are unfairly targeted, since you can always find examples of some speech being suppressed and some opposite viewpoint being allowed.

What I haven't seen anyone actually do is actually do some sort objective analysis of whether it's more common on one side or the other, or whether comparably misleading statements get treated differently.

[Gandydancer]

The subject of media bias is much studied.
Or you could just consult your lying eyes.
The answer is outside the range of confirmation bias.
In normal cases of confirmation bias, anyway.
Your posting suggests that yours is a very bad one.

[jb]

Media bias? What does that have to do with social media moderation?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

and they pretty uniformly complain that social media is biased in favor of conservatives

Then they're pretty uniformly stupid and/or under the influence of some powerful narcotics.

[Krychek_2]

Oh no Wuz. We’re not talking about you.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Your mastery of kindergarten retorts continues to impress.

[Jay Ash]

Fwiw, my "solution" to 230 would be to

+ make the dns providers and nameservers common carriers
+ make payment processors common carriers

I think that would ensure sufficient competition so as to allow new social media entities to form, and ensure any Tom, Jane, or Harry who got booted off of Twitter/FB/etc., would still be able to create, host a website complete with ecommerce presenting their own speech.

But then I'd tie 230 immunities to requirements that social media giants have to institute some form of Consumer Protection "due process" in terms of openness, transparency, timeliness of content takedowns, suspensions and bans. And make that auditable by accredited 3rd party researchers who could score how well does any social media giant live up to it's TOS and it's stated "due process" policies.

[Illocust]

My understanding with payment proccessors, is that the banking industry is so deeply in need with the government, that officials have a thousand different ways to make them pay legally and financially if they do business with any other business or financial institution a government worker doesn't like.

So ironically being a common carrier might help for payment processors? I started this post thinking it wouldn't, but by the end, yeah, it wouldn't put them into any greater legal bind than they already are. But just like most politicians won't try to pressure phone companies to cut off service to their opponents because phone companies legally can't. Common Carrier status would provide payment processors a imperfect but still real liability shield against retaliation.

[Krayt]

I would like a law that flat-out forbids transaction processors from denying any legal transaction just because some people find it unsavory.

That's a perfect job for the interstate commerce clause. If you seek to make a market in convenient electronic transactions, you handle it all, and cannot foreclose some.

Of course, government's alread bypassing this by trying to add filtering on every transaction to their panopticon. What bad could possibly come from officials knowing where all your money goes!

[Voize of Reazon]

Jay, carriers of what exactly?

[Jay Ash]

Carriers of data, same as telecom (carriers of data), and freight companies (carriers of ... freight)

What is your objection?

[Voize of Reazon]

Carriers transport stuff for other people, for money.
That isn't what those services do. They supply information, or process it. Carriers are involved to move data between the services and their clients, but the services themselves are not carriers.

[Kevin Smith]

I don't think your DNS solution is going to solve the problem you think it will solve. I believe you are thinking of scenarios like Parler being dropped from its hosting service, but that was the hosting service, not the DNS service.

[Jay Ash]

Not to defend their ideas, but I believe stormfront and perhaps even Alex Jones had their DNS cutoff. I suspect that was nameservers since they already had the domain.

I think there are enough hosting services, and failing that, that given an IP and a domain name, it is easy enough to host your site on your own, that making DNS provision and serving a common carrier would be sufficient.

[Gandydancer]

How does GoDaddy's deplatforming of Texas Right to Life fit into these distinctions?

They found someone else but that entity, too, demanded that they not host a form to receive anonymous tips about SB8 violations.

[Jacob Grimes]

I don't think you even need to go that far. If I remember correctly, the legislative history suggests that some of the powers given to content hosting companies to remove content were grounded in fears that they would be unable to remove pornography without them. So instead of using words like "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable," revise it to spell out how these adjectives should be interpreted while specifically exempting specific speech (i.e. speech that makes generalizations about gender, race, religion).

[Jay Ash]

I'm not sure which would be more difficult, to get 230 rewritten like that, or just to make dns providers common carriers.

DNS is a protocol that sits aside the traditional stack as originally designed, but regardless, I think it's easy to see it's literal internet infrastructure at this point and should be a common carrier

[Gandydancer]

It wasn't legislative history, it was case law. IIRC, Prodigy was held to be a publisher of user-provided content, with resultant liabilities, because it moderated user posts. 230 was (in part) intended to relieve Prodigy and its ilk of acquiring such responsibility merely by doing that.

[AmosArch]

It is widely believed that the traditional academic humanities, art, and similar are useless and only continue be of benefit through their commercial offspring. I disagree. I think these fields once were and could again potentially be massive boons for mankind. Its just that they've been so corrupted by postmodern and leftwing nonsense.

The fairly broad agreement among all political stripes (at least when you don't use it to argue against their ideology) that many of these fields are not at the form they used to be; should serve as a clear warning against the forces that made them that way. In fact, even some of the more technical disciplines are now starting to fall victim to this same corrosive postmodernism.

[bernard11]

Only Norman Rockwell from now on. Is that it?

(Actually, I agree that they put out a fair amount of BS.)

[SimonP]

Strange, I hadn't known that "postmodern" had become an antisemitic euphemism. Good to know! I'd like to stay alert to fascist propaganda.

Anyway, I realize it is completely futile to make this point, to you, but there isn't really unwinding the core "postmodern" insights. Any attempt to move back to some kind of "modern" mentality would require some kind of reinforced ignorance or forgetting. It would be like taking the red pill and then getting yourself plugged back in to the Matrix.

I realize that's exactly the point for reactionary fascists like yourself, but it's important to see, also, why it's completely impossible. You will not succeed in simply murdering everyone who disagrees with you.

[Gandydancer]

It's just embarrassing how the little voices in your head trigger your uncontrollable Tourette's. Nothing AmosArch said suggested anti-Semitism.

[apedad]

I attended a First Aid/Automated External Defibrillator (AED)/CPR training yesterday.

It's been at least two decades since I last took the training.

One big change is they strongly emphasize doing compressions during the CPR and not so much on the breathing anymore.

It was also my first exposure with an AED machine and am glad I had that so if an emergency comes then I'll be familiar.

[Commenter_XY]

apedad....how many compressions to breaths per minute? Just curious.

[apedad]

30 to 2 but the trainer said the number of compressions didn't really matter - just keep doing them 100 - 120 per minute.

When I took the training looooong ago it was 15/2.

But again, they de-emphasized the breathing and even mentioned that 911 won't even mention it if they're assisting.

The reason was because people didn't want to put their lips on strangers so weren't even doing the compressions.

[Commenter_XY]

Hey, thx for the full and complete response, apedad. Really appreciated that. Ok...Two compressions per second, must be hard on the arms. But it totally makes sense, since you need to circulate blood. I could see myself doing that for about 3-4 minutes before getting real tired. Maybe a little longer.

But in an extreme emergency, I have noticed that time seems to slow down. At least, it does for me. And it has only happened a few times to me....I mean life/death kind of emergency. The first time was a car accident. I swear, I thought I was a goner. Let me try to describe the physical and sensate feeling. It is as if I got a painless electric jolt, and my mental acuity felt much quicker. I saw everything around me faster. And my sensate experience of the immediate environment around me was that it just felt slower. Not the hollywood slo-mo stuff you see in movies, but definitely slower. Have you had that same experience?

So what pointers did the instructor give to stay in that 100-120 compressions per minute range, when you're in the thick of it (emergency)? Because I kind of get the feeling that in an extreme emergency, I'd do 150 (and get tired too quickly) when 100 might be better. How do you pace yourself, is what I am asking?

[Brett Bellmore]

Two compressions per second makes sense; Manual compression isn't nearly as efficient at moving blood as a beating heart, they'd had a big problem with people on CPR for more than a few minutes having brain damage due to inadequate perfusion.

"One!" push. "Thousand!" push. "Thirty" breath, and back to one. Like that.

[Kevin Smith]

Its been a long time since I took CPR training but one of the things they told us was as soon as you start compressions call out to anyone else around, if they know CPR to be ready to relieve you, because you will almost certainly be too tired to be effective before EMTs arrive.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Commenter_XY,

On your point about time feeling slower in exigent circumstances, I have had that on more than one occasion.

Most vividly, I was riding my bike and someone stopped quickly in front of me, I put brakes (front especially) too hard and started flipping. It felt like I had an inordinate amount of time to decide whether to try to control the bike and get back to two wheels or push free. I am sure it didn't look great, but I kicked free and did a little roll and all was fine.

On the other hand, just this past spring, I was in the Cali mountains, came to a split too fast, decided to ride through the brush in the middle rather than swerve one way or the other. It seemed pretty immediate between my front wheel hitting a concealed rock and my mouth being full of sand. I was just happy I didn't break my neck.

And before you think that I am a complete danger to myself and/or others on a bike, these are my only two bike wrecks and are separated by 20 years. Still, that last one, I've known two people who broke their necks riding mountain bikes. I now know how quickly that disaster can happen. Based on my previous experience (and likely younger reflexes), I had thought I could tuck and roll or something. Sometimes things happen in slo-mo and other times, they are over before you really realize what is happening.

[Doug Huffman]

Reiterating - CPR aid breathing is deprecated in favor of maximizing circulation, even with a second person able to assist.

The old 15:1 (solo) and 5:2 (duo) is obsolete.

Take a CPR refresher. Remember, if you aren’t cracking ribs then you aren’t trying hard enough.

[apedad]

Oh and since this is a legal blog, they discussed Good Samaritan laws too.

Basically, if you choose to assist, you should try your best and you must stay with the victim until relieved by someone equally or better trained.

Also,
(a) A person described in subsection (b) of this section is not civilly liable for any act or omission in giving any assistance or medical care, if:

(1) The act or omission is not one of gross negligence;
(2) The assistance or medical care is provided without fee or other compensation; and
(3) The assistance or medical care is provided:

(i) At the scene of an emergency;
(ii) In transit to a medical facility; or
(iii) Through communications with personnel providing emergency assistance.

GS laws don't cover gross negligence though so you can't do something completely unreasonable, e.g. dunk their head in water to try to wake someone up.

And, "[a]ll other states provide immunity if a person chooses to help, but do not require us to aid our fellow humans. Vermont does, however, because the state's good Samaritan law actually orders citizens to help those in need. If a Vermonter does not assist at the scene of an emergency, he or she could be fined."

[Krayt]

If you ever have to do CPR, don't feel bad if it fails.

Success rates are much, much worse than you know. And of the few successes, many end in brain damage. Many doctors don't want it on themselves even if they collapse right in the hospital.

[Commenter_XY]

Some time ago, I posted some 'kitchen' type things here at VC (KitchenAid stand mixer, etc). I wanted to share something with the VC conspirators they might like. I ran across this recipe and was blown away at the ease and simplicity. Prep time is 15 minutes (cut figs, stuff them), and broil time is 3 minutes. Figs with goat cheese is now my favorite Friday evening treat for the High Holiday season. Here in the People's Republic of NJ, the fig season is Aug-Sep. It has been glorious. My gardening efforts have been rewarded (I took up horticulture as a hobby. Who knew I had a green thumb? I was looking into retirement hobbies and this will be one of them. I call it: Applied Organic Biochemistry).

Ok, here goes.

In my garden area, I have a fig tree. There is actually a wonderful story behind the tree itself, but that is for another day. This tree (cultivated from a single cutting years ago) is now 18 feet high, and this year was truly a bumper crop. The question I had was: WTH do I do with all of these figs?!

I ran across a recipe that is easy (and quick); figs stuffed with goat cheese and date syrup. It is PERFECT for the High Holidays (esp Sukkot), and was a real winner for the YK break fast (next year, I am screwed as the HH are late in the year). I will link the recipe below, but wanted to pass along some tips and tricks I learned (meaning, I messed up and learned...heh, heh).

- When you harvest figs, pick them by bending back gently in the opposite direction of the lean of the stem. It snaps right off. Sounds simple, right? Took me a while to figure that out. Duh....right? 🙂

- When you cut off the tops, be parsimonious; don't cut off too much, just enough to get rid of the stem.

- When you cross-cut 1/3rd the way, gently press on both sides to open the fig a little (for the goat cheese).

- Ok, the big learning. For the goat cheese, only snip off a tiny corner of the package, and then 'squirt' the goat cheese into the fig. This was my biggest 'Aha' moment. That was revolutionary for me. Yeah, yeah - I know. D'oh! 🙂

Side note: I got the date syrup from Whole Paycheck Foods. You can use honey, but truthfully, date syrup is MUCH better. Lower glycemic index, too.

Here is the recipe link
https://toriavey.com/toris-kitchen/stuffed-figs-with-goat-cheese/

Enjoy!

[Krayt]

A law website with something useful. Now I've seen everything.

[Commenter_XY]

Beats politics, right? 🙂

[Michael P]

The real secret power of a blawg is the ability to turn any comment into one about procedure?

[Don Nico]

My fig tree is just starting to yield ripe fruit. I'll give it a try.

[Brett Bellmore]

I visited an orchard to pick figs last year, and after seeing how many bees were around those fig trees, I decided I didn't really want one in the backyard after all.

[Don Nico]

Brett,
We seldom see bees or yellow jackets around our fig tree.
Our battle with nature is getting the ripe figs before the squirrels or raccoons.

[Commenter_XY]

You'll like it. The contrast in flavor between sweet, salty, peppery is pretty amazing. The goat cheese adds a hint of sour. Healthy as hell, too.

[Don Nico]

C_XY,
Inspired by your post, I tried a ripe fig from my tree with thin slices of aged Manchego, which is a cheese made with sheep and goat milk. The result was deliberately not sweet by savory.
Quite good. So thanks for the inspiration.

[Commenter_XY]

I am trying my hand at cauliflower steaks tonight, as a side dish to chicken vindaloo.

[Doug Huffman]

I suspect that pResident Joe Biden is using a body double. There have been a number of more or less intimate photographs recently, as receiving his vaxx and booster, showing ear lobes and arm hair and hands.

The WH set setting further impeaches.

Previously there have been videos of variously fit and steady pResident Biden, some have attributed to medications.

The ‘P’ is silent, silently running down his leg.

[Brett Bellmore]

This strikes me as a bit dubious. Well, no, a lot dubious.

Look, Doug, there are a lot of fake conspiracy theories being circulated out there, actually originated by the left, to make the right look stupid, get us obsessing about things they know are safe for us to be chasing after. They've always done a bit of that, (Remember the fuss about Obama's birth certificate? And how he encouraged it by fighting its release, knowing there was nothing to see?) but it really ramped up in the last few years.

You have to be more skeptical, 90% of the conspiracy theories out there are coming from the other guys as a distraction.

[Nige]

This has big 'the lefties are deliberately being pro-vaxx because they know the right will go antivaxx to pwn them, thereby killing off the right' energy.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've literally seen interviews with some of the people originating this sort of thing, where they admit they're messing with the other side for fun and profit.

[David Nieporent]

No, you literally have never seen any such thing. Literally.

But free clue: "Trumpkins aren't smart or crazy enough to come up with insane ideas, but are stupid and crazy enough to believe them" wasn't the exoneration you thought it was.

[Nige]

It's just a way of avoiding having to confront how completely the right has departed from reality and how prone they are to quite bizarre fantasies.

[Gandydancer]

That's exactly the sort of conspiracy theory Brett B was talking about.

The kind of demographics killed by SARS-2 aren't particularly (R) voters or activists, and the differential (R)-(D) number certainly isn't significant.

[bernard11]

Per Brett, every right-wing idiocy is the fault of the left. Just amazing.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Murc's Law.

[Voize of Reazon]

Remember the fuss about Obama’s birth certificate? And how he encouraged it by fighting its release, knowing there was nothing to see?

Is that the same 3-D chess move Trump continues to play with his tax returns?

[Brett Bellmore]

Possibly.

[Krychek_2]

I doubt it; the tax returns we've seen so far are pretty damning.

[Armchair Lawyer]

How so?

[Gandydancer]

The little voices in his head tell him so.

The only Trump tax returns I've heard of getting out there are the old ones his niece stole. at the behest of the NYT, from the lawyer who got them under seal in some inheritance case. The big reveal in the NYT was a flop. (But there may be liability for the NYT on the same co-conspirator theory as in the Assange-Manning case.)

[StellaLink_the dog]

Sure, there are some Democrats in congress who have less than a firm grip on reality, and some who make some pretty bizarre and reprehensible statements, but compared to the likes of MTG or Boebert or Cawthorn or Gaetz, there are no Democrats that are even close to as loopy. I can't think of a Democrat in congress who is even close to Ted Cruz (the Canadian named Rafael) on the whacko scale. And, who on the Republican side is nearly as cogent and intellectually thoughtful as Colorado's Michael Bennet?

And for social media bans, who on the left is as great a liar and conspiracy monger as Alex Jones or as odious as Milo Yiannopoulos from Breitbart?

[Gandydancer]

I could name a legion, but that hilarious crook Maxine Waters is a start.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You can't name a legion or you would have named more than one. And even Maxine isn't nearly as nuts as MTG.

And what about the Senators? Any Republican close to as decent and thoughtful as a Michael Bennett has been chased out. See Flake, Jeff. You might try Ben Sasse, but he's only even odds not to be as obsequious as Ted Cruz were Trump to insult his wife, given his determined effort to say nothing useful about Trump (or cast any Trumpkin disapproved vote) until after he was safe and saying mean things maybe kinda might help him escape the stink of being a Trump enabler. ("I never liked that guy!" Says Ben Sasse after he wins re-election. Such bravery.)

Ted Cruz: Will stand athwart the Senate and single-handedly filibuster to the tune of billions of taxpayer dollars (for shutdown and restart) in a symbolic effort (symbolic rather than actual because he can count to 51 like the rest of the Senate) to stop "Obama's" spending, but let Trump insult his wife and father and he'll happily sign on to as much deficit spending in Trump's 4 years as happened in Obama's 8 years. Some priniciples, that one.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"(Remember the fuss about Obama’s birth certificate? And how he encouraged it by fighting its release, knowing there was nothing to see?)"

Obama published an official Hawaii document very early on clearly demonstrating his birth details. Why should he have bothered with anything more just to placate known crackpots, frauds, and feeble minded bell ends?

[bernard11]

Right.

Because there's no end to the demands.

[Gandydancer]

FWIW Obama's actual birth cert wasn't released until 2011. There was a document released in 2008, but it was merely a statement of what info was on file for him in the computer records. His motives for not promptly releasing the original document... who knows?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Maybe because next is every other personal record he has. Why you hiding that? You released your official birth certificate?

Trump pushing the birther thing should have been disqualifying from any sane party. The problem is that, for the Republican base, that level of dishonest-crazy was a feature, not a bug.

[Ben_]

Stories are fun, but believing them is unwise

[apedad]

Iowa grain cooperative target of cyberattack by Russian-linked hacker

An Iowa grain cooperative has been attacked by a Russian-linked hacker seeking a multimillion dollar ransom, just as the state's farmers are rolling into corn and soybean fields to begin the fall harvest.

The attack began around Friday, the news agency reported.

The cooperative, with 60 locations mostly in northwest and north central Iowa, confirmed Monday in a statement it had "recently identified a cybersecurity incident" that is impacting some of the company’s "devices and systems."

"Out of an abundance of caution, we have proactively taken our systems offline to contain the threat, and we can confirm it has been successfully contained," it said in a statement.

New Cooperative's website was mostly back online late Monday afternoon, providing cash bid information for corn and soybeans.

I consider these attacks the greatest threat to the US and believe these low level attacks are just the beginning of worse things to come.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/agriculture/2021/09/20/russia-linked-cyberattack-blackmatter-ransomware-iowa-grain-cooperative/5788957001/

[apedad]

Federal agencies warn companies to be on guard against prolific ransomware strain

The FBI, the National Security Agency (NSA), and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) on Wednesday issued a warning to U.S. organizations to be aware of a specific type of ransomware that has already wreaked havoc on hundreds of groups.

The agencies issued a joint alert specifically warning groups to be on guard against the Conti ransomware variant, with the agencies noting that 400 U.S. and international groups had already fallen victim to Conti.

The alert outlined steps that organizations can take to protect against the Conti ransomware variant, which involves cybercriminals using malicious emails, phone calls, or stolen credentials to steal and encrypt information and demand payment from victims to regain access.

https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/573475-federal-agencies-warn-companies-to-be-on-guard-against-prolific

[bernard11]

Gee.

Someone creates a "currency" that's designed to facilitate crime, and it turns out that criminals find uses for it.

Yes. Bitcoin will save us all.

[Gandydancer]

What's the evidence for "Russia-linked"?

[Brett Bellmore]

Setting aside the desperate need for companies to stop leaving critical systems open to attack just to gain a little convenience...

Has anybody else gotten sick of that phrase, "out of an abundance of caution"?

[apedad]

"Setting aside the desperate need for companies to stop leaving critical systems open to attack just to gain a little convenience…"

Kinda like anti-vaxxers. . . .

[Brett Bellmore]

It is kind of like that, in that my anti-viral software actually does protect my computer, even if my neighbor doesn't bother to have any, so I've got no basis for forcing him to install it.

The big difference is that your computer doesn't become immune to a computer virus after having caught it, the way people become immune to something like Covid after having caught it, so there's actually less reason to demand people take the vaccine, as having suffered the disease accomplishes the same end, merely less pleasantly.

[Artifex]

Don't give them any ideas. I can see it now ....

"Those evil Russians have unleashed a computer virus that has taken our grain silos offline. Oh my god, we have to do something. Quick mandate that everyone must leave their computer off for the next month."

[Brett Bellmore]

They probably wouldn't ask.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I consider these attacks the greatest threat to the US and believe these low level attacks are just the beginning of worse things to come."

We ought to be counterattacking. We spend billions and billions on the NSA, it can shut some russian systems.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"We ought to be counterattacking. We spend billions and billions on the NSA, it can shut some russian systems."

Perhaps the tools to use are financial. Surely, Vlad the Inhaler does not keep his wealth denominated in Russian Rubles. Put a squeeze on SWIFT and foreign exchange transactions of state actors who tolerate attacks originating in their countries.

[Gandydancer]

Before siccing the NSA on Russia you better have better proof that Putin is behind it than someone saying "Russia linked" in some random presser.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Briefly for the record.

1. Democrats can pass a continuing resolution and keep the government running entirely on their own.

2. Democrats can also pass a debt limit hike via a reconciliation bill entirely on their own.

3. Democrats also have a long history of voting against debt hike increases as the minority party, unless they get a substantial sweetener. And sometimes even then. They have not offered any such sweetener to the GOP.

4. Thus, any debt hike default or government shutdown is entirely the Democrats fault, as they control Congress, and can pass a debt limit hike and CR without any GOP support.

5. That they choose not to (because of the political optics) is their own fault.

That is all.

[Krychek_2]

That would be true if Manchin and Synema were actual Democrats.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Which they are. Moderate Democrats, but they still have the big "D" next to their name, and they still vote with the other Democrats quite often.

Or are moderate Democrats "not real Democrats" according to you?

[Brett Bellmore]

That is essentially the problem here: The Democrats in Congress are determined, not to pass legislation that has majority support in Congress, but instead to pass legislation that has majority support of Democrats in Congress. Which is to say, legislation that a substantial number of Democrats, and all Republicans, oppose.

You can get away with that sort of approach when you have an overwhelming majority, such that you can win votes even losing a lot of your own caucus. You can't get away with it when you have a razor thin majority in one chamber, and a tie with the VP breaking ties in the other.

But they're trying to do it anyway, just by ramping up the pressure on moderate Democrats to cave, and demanding that Republicans help them out with passing legislation they had no input into.

[Krychek_2]

They vote with Democrats on the single most important vote of the session, which is organization of the chamber with Democrats in the majority.

But on issues Democrats care most about, like voting rights legislation, Biden's infrastructure plan, immigration, they may as well be Republicans.

[Armchair Lawyer]

So, Krychek....

Previously you have said that since Democrats have a majority they should be able to govern like they want, and it's not fair that they aren't able to.

And I responded that they don't really have the support. They don't really have a majority.

The problem is, there are quite a lot of moderate Democrats (Exemplified by Manchin) who don't support these changes that you propose.

If your "majority" includes moderate Democrats who you don't count as "real democrats"....then you don't actually have a majority. Something to consider.

[Krychek_2]

Democrats have a majority in the country taken as a whole. The problem is the anti-democratic Senate in which small states get to cancel out big ones. If we had proportionate representation in the Senate, the GOP would likely never hold power again. In other words, your side only maintains power by suppressing democracy.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, you can't assume that if we change something major, like going to PR, (Which I support, BTW.) that you're going to get exactly the same vote counts, they'll just be counted differently. Institute PR, and political minorities everywhere will have more incentive to actually show up and vote, even in districts where previously it was pointless because the election outcome was foreordained.

Republicans in places like California, where most of the time they're not even permitted to have a candidate of their own party on the general election ballot, are severely demoralized. Think that would still be the case if you had PR?

And for PR in the Senate, you'd literally need two constitutional amendments, one to amend Article V, in order to permit an amendment to alter the Senate.

[Krychek_2]

I think that PR would not produce results as dramatic as some Democrats think, but I think the bottom line would be a more progressive Senate overall. You're right; under the current system, there is little reason for Republicans to bother voting in California or Democrats to bother voting in Mississippi. Instituting PR and ending the electoral college would mean the votes of California Republicans and Mississippi Democrats would actually mean something, though. The parties would actually have to compete in those states. And that, I think, would be a good thing.

[Brett Bellmore]

More reason for Democrats to vote in Mississippi, I think, because Republicans have not contrived to deny them access to the general election ballot: Their candidates may be doomed across most of the state, but they're allowed to have somebody to vote for. My brother lives in California, and in non-Presidential years he hardly has any reason to vote in the general election, there are only Democrats on the ballot, and he can't even write somebody in.

But, yes, I think it would be a good thing if both parties had a motive to try to appeal to voters outside the areas they dominate, which is one of the reasons I support PR.

[Don Nico]

I live in CA. Your brother is correct.
There is no reason to vote, except to vote "no" on the myriad propositions which always try to take money from the public to to create mischief.

[bernard11]

most of the time they’re not even permitted to have a candidate of their own party on the general election ballot, are severely demoralized.

How exactly are they not permitted?

[Brett Bellmore]

Top two jungle primary, obviously. If the Republican comes in third in the jungle primary, the general election ballot will present you with a choice of two Democrats.

[Krychek_2]

But that's not keeping them off the ballot. That's them not having enough popular support to avoid coming in third.

[bernard11]

That's what I thought. You're seeing conspiracies where there are none. Republicans are fully allowed to run.

The jungle primary is not keeping Republicans off the ballot. It just shows they can't find a candidate who can even come in second.

[SimonP]

Well, think about what you're actually saying here.

You're saying that California denies Republicans a spot on the ballot, because the jungle primary means that the two top vote-getters face off in the general - as a kind of run-off - which turn out to both be Democrats, sometimes.

You'd apparently prefer that California simply reserve a spot on the general ballot for the Republican candidate, however the GOP selects him. But in what circumstances could that Republican candidate win?

Well - given that, by hypothesis, the Republican candidate in question would have placed no better than third in the jungle primary, they wouldn't be able to win in a general with their core supporters alone. They'd have to attract votes from other candidates who don't make it to the general ballot - including, in particular, the second-most-popular Democratic candidate. You'd want those voters to "choose the lesser evil" as between the Democratic and Republican candidates, even though they're more numerous than the Republican candidate's supporters. And you'd have to just hope that the Republican could attract those votes.

I can't understand why anyone with an interest in representative democracy would prefer that, except for someone who understands that their policy preferences are not shared by the majority of people and wants there to be procedural hurdles that make their politics more likely to carry the day. Who is, in other words, anti-democratic.

[Bob from Ohio]

"You’d apparently prefer that California simply reserve a spot on the general ballot for the Republican candidate, however the GOP selects him."

Yes, like 48 other states.

Jungle primaries are a Jim Crow tactic.

[Don Nico]

K_2,
That is just the ploy that D's in CA use to keep even non-endorse progressives off the ballot.

A on-party system is just that and little benefit to the citizenry.
On the plus side I never feel hesitation abut voting for a minority or protest candidate, because my vote will not make one iota of difference. Just how does that attitude promote democracy?

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Democrats have a majority in the country taken as a whole. "

But you're not taking them as a whole. You're excluding moderate Democrats, who in your view "they may as well be Republicans."

If you don't have the moderate Democrats, you don't have a majority of the country. (Leaving aside the entire issue of independents...)

[Brett Bellmore]

Also leaving out the fact that you don't have Senate elections in every state every 2 years, so the House vote is actually a better proxy than the Senate vote.

Anyway, most of the Democratic vote total edge comes from uncontested races. They're racking it up in areas where Republicans don't even run candidates, and so never bother showing up to vote.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I disagree with your interpretation of that fact. Democrats were gerrymandered into 19 uncontested races, while Republicans were gerrymandered into only 8. In your view, as I understand it, you think this means that there were 19 cases where turnout was lower than it otherwise would be for Republicans and only 8 on the Democrat side. Maybe.

But the real problem is the fact that Democrats still won 72.4 million votes in contested races (of which they won 203) while Republicans were able to win 204 races with only 70.7 million votes. The root of your problem is uncompetitive races. But it is Republican legislatures that have been quite effective at making our House elections as uncompetitive and, so, as undemocratic as possible for partisan purposes. They can win more seats with fewer votes, due to manipulating district boundaries to create districts with very few Republicans and overwhelming numbers of Democrats, so that they can win more seats than the votes would otherwise allow. See the Texas redistricting plan for a stark example of how the Republicans are trying to create more uncompetitive races, which, I think, we can all agree is not ideal.

So, yeah, the margin by which Democrats consistently get more votes than Republicans may be due to some uncompetitive races, they still get more votes (even in only competitive races). This is also reflected in the fact that the Democratic candidate has received more votes than the Republican candidate in 7 out of the last 8 U.S. Presidential elections. And, yet, Republicans have gotten control of the White House in 3 out of those 8 elections.

Can you imagine what conspiracies Republicans would be spinning if those numbers were reversed? They stormed the Capitol and tried to stop the Constitutionally-mandated counting of electoral votes after legit losing the electoral college and getting smashed in the popular vote. What would they have done if they had actually dominated the popular vote but lost one state of over 10 million people by less than a thousand votes in a state controlled by the other party? I think it is safe to say they would not have respected the Constitution or the process the way Democrats did in 2000. Republicans response has been to make it easier to steal the election while losing on the ballot.

This really should transcend party if you care more about the American system of self-government than you do about a particular policy initiative (taxes, social safety net, what have you). Either we have a country where the voters choose their leaders, or we have a country where leaders choose their voters. I am all in for the former. I think those seeking to push the latter are short-sighted.

[Krychek_2]

I'm talking about the voters. And they vote majority Democrat.

Add up all the votes in every state for Democratic Senate candidates, and all the votes in every state for Republican Senate candidates. There are occasional exceptions, but in most years, the Democrats get more votes than the Republicans do. In fact, in most years it's not even close.

[ducksalad]

Krychek, I think the real numbers probably do favor you. But as Brett has pointed out to you, your method of "counting" has a rather serious flaw. To be specific, if we apply it the 2018 election, how many Republicans does your method count in California? Zero, when there are in fact several million.

There is nothing inherently unfair about the top-two system. If two Dems make it to the final stage, so be it. However, the result of that stage is not a valid measure of relative partisan support. At a minimum you would need to count the first round primary instead.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd argue the problem is actually that they're denying voters the right to vote as that right was originally understood: The right to vote for whomever you damned well pleased. The practice of pre-printing ballots evolved from a convenience, to enabling the government to restrict voter choice.

[Gandydancer]

The Jungle Primary electorate is smaller than the General Election electorate, I believe. You could say that it's the fault of the voters who'd like a different choice than, say, two (D) for US Senator in the General that they didn't come out in sufficient numbers in the primary, but the people saying that are the same ones saying that any barriers to voting by the unmotivated are so objectionable that no id should be required of them. You can always differentiate if you want to, but I'm smelling the hypocrisy of this.

[David Nieporent]

I’d argue the problem is actually that they’re denying voters the right to vote as that right was originally understood:

Yes, you would. Ever notice that when people use the phrase "I'd argue that" it always is followed by something that has no basis in law? (That's a favorite phrasing of the late unlamented Dr. Ed.)

In Georgia, Jon Ossoff, David Perdue, and libertarian Shane Hazel ran for one of the two senate seats last November. Nobody got a majority, so they held a runoff between Ossoff and Perdue in January. (Spoiler Alert: Ossoff won.) One couldn't vote for Hazel or anyone else besides Ossoff or Perdue in that runoff. Did that deny the voters the right to vote for whomever they pleased? No. That's not how it works. It's not the original election; it's a runoff.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, you just don't understand how one-sided California politics are. If you want more conservative policies statewide with the CA GOP in the state it's in, you want a jungle primary.

[Don Nico]

David N,
No one said that the jungle primary violated any of the laws of CA. But it does further the interests of D's in perpetuating a one party state especially when what turns out to be the critical election is held well in advance of the general election day.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I’m talking about the voters. And they vote majority Democrat

And many of those voters are MODERATE Democrats. Many of those voters vote for Manchin and Synema precisely because they are moderates.

But your way of judging them wouldn't count them as "real" Democrats.

[apedad]

Aren't you the guys constantly squawking RINO!

[Brett Bellmore]

Manchin and Synema vote lockstep with their party at least 2/3 of the time, hugely more often than any Republican Senator. It's not their fault the party leadership are pressuring them to vote for things that are political poison in their home states.

Basically, they've decided they're going to lose those seats, and want to treat the two of them as expendable. You can't be shocked they don't want to go along with that plan.

[bernard11]

Manchin and Synema vote lockstep with their party at least 2/3 of the time, hugely more often than any Republican Senator.

Bullshit. The Republicans take orders from McConnell, and follow them.

Do you really think there are no Republicans who understand what a catastrophe not raising the debt ceiling would be?

[Brett Bellmore]

And if Democrats understand what a catastrophe it would be, why don't they proceed to hold a vote? They could, without any Republican votes, if they actually wanted to.

They're pursuing a process that requires Republican votes, because they want Republicans to be complicit in what they're doing.

[Life of Brian]

Do you really think there are no Republicans who understand what a catastrophe not raising the debt ceiling would be?

I believe the idea is "you broke it, you buy it." Why should the Rs give the Ds political cover for the Ds' diarrheal spending spree? They have a majority and can jam through the debt ceiling increase just like they jammed through the spending.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Maybe because a huge chunk of the debt is their responsibility too?

[Brett Bellmore]

A huge chunk of the debt IS their responsiblity, too. That's true.

But we're not talking about a vote to allow the debt to continue to exist. We're talking about a vote to allow it to get larger.

And who had total control of what that NEW debt was spent on? Who insisted on not letting the minority party have any input into spending? The Democrats.

Since they completely controlled what the added debt was spent on, why shouldn't they raise the ceiling all by themselves?

[LawTalkingGuy]

So Republicans get to do whatever they want and democrats don't because reasons? Great system.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, because of "reasons" that I actually provided.

You want the minority to help paying the bill, you need to let them have some say on what the loot was spent on. If you can't bear to do that, it's all on you.

[Armchair Lawyer]

LTG,

Democrats have a long history of voting down increases in the debt limit when Republicans are in charge. Including Pelosi.

Why wouldn't you expect the opposite?

[LawTalkingGuy]

You want the minority to help paying the bill, you need to let them have some say on what the loot was spent on. If you can’t bear to do that, it’s all on you.

The Brett GOP mantra: personal responsibility. You’re responsible for your choices. You’re also responsible for my choices too.

[bernard11]

We're talking about not defaulting and bringing on a crisis, you moron.

And who had total control of what that NEW debt was spent on? Who insisted on not letting the minority party have any input into spending? The Democrats.

Excuse me, Brett. Do you claim the Republicans had nothing to do with the deficit? They controlled both houses of Congress for Trump's first two years, and the Senate for the rest. They rammed through a massive tax, useless, tax cut, and certainly had a large hand in the overall budget.

But somehow, in your crazed mind it's the Democrats who are fully responsible for the size of the deficit. Are you fucking deranged?

[Brett Bellmore]

"You’re responsible for your choices. You’re also responsible for my choices too."

Yes, that's what the Democrats are saying to the Republicans: "We get to chose what all the money is spent on, you are responsible for helping us pay for it/borrow it."

[LawTalkingGuy]

As opposed to republicans who say: we already spent the money and now you can’t do what you want, because you’re responsible for our actions.

It’s like if your parents gave the older sibling a car they promptly wrecked and the younger sibling has to get a job to pay for a car to drive them both to school.

[bernard11]

Brett,

What you are saying is so far wrong it's not worth refuting.

Do you know we are still operating on a budget passed, and signed, while Trump was President?

Everything you say about this is stupid and ill-informed.

[Brett Bellmore]

Bernard, which party was it, again, that controlled Congress for the last two years of the Trump administration?

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, look up how the Federal budget is done these days.

Congress perturbates the President's budget request, but it's the Executive that sets the priorities, and the vast majority of the spending amounts.

[bernard11]

which party was it, again, that controlled Congress for the last two years of the Trump administration?

Like I said,/a> the Democrats controlled the House and the Republicans controlled the Senate.

And who passed that multi-trillion dollar tax cut again? Guess that doesn't count. in your mind, anyway.

[Don Nico]

"a vote to allow it to get larger."
in fact, much larger (of the order of 20%)

[NOVA Lawyer]

Brett,

That isn't what the vote is about. The obligations are there. The Republicans under Trump already spent the money that requires raising the debt ceiling. This actually has nothing to do with "NEW" debt. This is about the spending pushed by Trump and supported by the Republican-Senate (and the first Republican, then Democratic House). You are buying into the lie. It is pure political gamesmanship to try to sell the lie you just told, that it's Democratic spending that requires raising the debt ceiling. It isn't. It is so we can meet obligations created by the record-breaking Trump budget deficits during the "Greatest Economy Ever" (tm).

(Granted, new spending under Biden will also require further upward revisions, but the debt ceiling thing has turned into a terrible idea. President Trump can propose and Republican Senators and House members can vote for new spending that will necessarily require raising the debt ceiling, then grandstand when it comes time to raise the debt ceiling to prevent a default on obligations they voted for. It's insane. And someone as intelligent as Brett buys it. Unbelievable.

[Gandydancer]

Bullshit. The Republicans take orders from McConnell, and follow them.

What are you smoking? For Manchin and Sinema substitute McCain and Collins when the GOP had a "majority".

[Bob from Ohio]

DINO v. RINO. Who will win?

[Commenter_XY]

That is the question, Bob from Ohio. 🙂

[Moderation4ever]

I would suggest that there are more moderate Democrats than progressive Democrats. The President, the Speaker and the Senate Majority leader are all moderates. Progressives can get enough votes to stop bills but not to get them through. That is their problem.

[Bob from Ohio]

"That would be true if Manchin and Synema were actual Democrats."

Sucks to have a Maverick senator from Arizona.

[David Nieporent]

Manchin and Sinema are actual Democrats. Don't start with the Trumpkin loon INO stuff. Being more liberal or conservative than the center of one's party does not make one not a member of the party. (To be sure, Trumpkins are worse about this, as they define RINO not as being too liberal, but as not having enough fealty to Trump.)

But what is also true is that it makes no sense to treat Democrats as a collective noun. If 48 Democrats want to pass X and 2 don't, it does not make sense to say that "Democrats" aren't doing X.

[Bob from Ohio]

RINO started being used decades ago. It has nothing to do with "Trumpkins".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_In_Name_Only

[StellaLink_the dog]

The term may have been in use for a long time by the same people who like to use the term "cuck," but the meaning has shifted just a bit whe Liz Cheney is classified as a RINO.

[Bob from Ohio]

Accepting an appointment from Nancy Pelosi is pretty RINOish. Its a deliberate break with the party.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"Its a deliberate break with the party."

Yeah, if the main feature of being a Republican is following DilDon around on your hands and knees sticking your cold, wet nose where it doesn't belong.

[Gandydancer]

I know that the TDS is strong in you, but the fealty of GOP officeholders to Trump never amounted to much out here in the real world, and is less than that now.

[not guilty]

Is that as true as everything else you have said?

[Gandydancer]

I never lie and I am seldom wrong. Remain determinedly ignorant if you want, though. No skin off my nose.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Which is why the only GOP officeholders who would say anything negative about Trump either recanted and became sycophants (e.g., Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham) or are "RINOs" (Romney, Liz Cheney) or have been drummed out of the party (Flake, etc.). GOP office holders continue to protect Trump and do his bidding in a number of ways (talk about stolen elections, January 6 denialism, etc.). It is less now, but it's still significant. The most you can get out of a Trumpkin is, well, I wish he wouldn't have spent so much. Otherwise, he's some kind of fucking hero. It's just gross.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

That would be true if Manchin and Synema were actual Democrats.

No true Scotsman!

[StellaLink_the dog]

Both are Democrats, as far as I can tell. Manchin is probably about as far left as a Democrat can get in West Virginia these days without getting strung up at Harper's Ferry. Former Democratic Senator Franken (and all-round repulsive personality) was on CNN the other day talking about the Senate and his observation was pretty much in line with what I've long thought -- Manchin is pretty much a reasonable guy who believes in most things that Democrats, in general, believe, but he does represent WV and WV is a harsh mistress.

Sinema, I don't understand. Arizona Republicans seem to be unable to nominate anybody for the Senate who is not a crackpot. Well, McSally might only be a crackpot imitator, but still. I think Arizona is getting bluer faster than the Arizona Dems realize.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sinema is easy to understand.

Imagine you get your start in politics in an area dominated by an ideological group you are not actually a member of, and have no sympathy for. But you have to pretend to be a member of it in order to have any chance of being elected. (Never mind for the moment why you insist on going into politics under these circumstances, rather than dentistry. Though it might be relevant...)

You're not actually a member of the group. You don't think like they do, you don't share their premises and reasoning, you aren't even particularly sympathetic towards them. In fact, you grow to hate them for the fact you have to pretend to be one of them.

Under those circumstances, is it surprising your mimicry would be a bit deficient? You're not trying to look like a member, you're trying to look like what you think the actual members are, and you don't like them. Of course you're going to act like a crackpot, and betray them whenever you think you can get away with it.

[Krychek_2]

Manchin and Synema are Scottish? I had no idea.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I had no idea.

That's probably the most insightful thing you've ever said.

[jb]

"Democrats also have a long history of voting against debt hike increases as the minority party, unless they get a substantial sweetener. And sometimes even then. They have not offered any such sweetener to the GOP."

Citation? In the Trump administration, Democrats proposed getting rid of the debt ceiling altogether, Trump supported the idea, and it was blocked by Republicans:

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/07/trump-end-debt-ceiling-votes-242429

I don't think you can point to any example of a Democratic minority opposing a clean debt ceiling increase; certainly not in recent enough history to be relevant to this discussion.

[Armchair Lawyer]

During the George W. Bush presidency, there were three times in which a fully Republican-controlled government had to raise the debt limit. House and Senate Democrats cumulatively voted against these bills at a 98.8 percent rate. Schumer and Pelosi voted against each of those debt limit hikes, as did then-Senator Barack Obama.

However, the last time a fully GOP-controlled government had to raise the debt limit—in February 2018—a majority of House Democrats (including Pelosi) voted no even despite the $300 billion in popular spending hikes attached to the bill.

But now, despite no sweeteners, despite the history, the GOP is supposed to vote for the debt limit hike?

[jb]

I haven't looked at the rest closely, but in 2018 incident, Democrats provided the votes to pass the spending bill despite 67 Republicans voting no (i.e., the bill would not have passed without Democratic support). So the facts of the situation very much do not resemble 2021 where there is 0 Republican support, and they wouldn't even allow for a majority vote to advance the bill.

[Illocust]

So the forced vaccination is coming for me. I'm not in the office, haven't been for a year and a half and won't be until next year. But my company just emailed out that we're all going to be forced to have a medical procedure against our will because Biden said fuck the constitution.

I'm beyond pissed, and because I literally just finished moving last week. I'm not in the financial position to leave.

[Greta]

That's awful, I'm sorry. I'm worried about the same thing. We have an "honors system" right now, but if they demand proof, I'll have to quit, especially if they don't allow for religious exemptions (all three vaccs were tested with aborted fetal tissue (even if Pfizer and Moderna didn't use it in development, they did use it in testing), which is one of my main objections to getting it). I'm not really in a financial position to quit either, but I'd rather bag groceries than live a lie. Anyway, praying for you.

[Moderation4ever]

I wonder how much you really investigate the use of fetal tissue research or if you have just limited your outrage to these vaccines?

[Greta]

Thanks for asking. I've investigated the use of aborted fetal tissue in the development of all vaccines quite extensively!

[David Nieporent]

Did you investigate enough to understand the difference between aborted fetal tissue and cell lines derived from aborted fetal tissue?

[Brett Bellmore]

Godwin warning. Does the medical community distinguish between the products of German medical research on prisoners, and the experiments themselves? It appears they're reluctant to draw that distinction.

[Noscitur a sociis]

In what way do you feel that your link supports that conclusion?

[Brett Bellmore]

In that I read it?

There's a debate about whether you should really use the very best available anatomical text out there, because it derived from German autopsies of political prisoners. The text isn't made out of political prisoners, of course, the books aren't printed on human skin, or anything silly like that. That's just where the bodies came from. Using the texts can reduce deaths and morbidity.

But they still argue about whether to use them, and the doctors who refuse are not considered pariahs.

How is the vaccine case any different? Medically useful, dubious origin.

[Bob from Ohio]

"difference between aborted fetal tissue and cell lines derived from aborted fetal tissue"

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/theyre-the-same-picture

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Did you investigate enough to understand the difference between aborted fetal tissue and cell lines derived from aborted fetal tissue?

I don't share the previous poster's objections, but what exactly do you think the relevance of that "difference" is? I mean, you as a biological entity are a collection of cells that were all "derived from" a different collection of cells that constituted you (again, as a biological entity) 7-10 years ago (the estimated time it takes for every cell in the typical human body to be replaced by their descendants). So...are there any ethical/moral implications of that?

[Gandydancer]

Is your understanding of the issue so poverty-stricken that you can't see why the difference between directly using the tissue of aborted fetuses and using cell lines originating in the tissue of aborted fetuses need be of no consequence?

[not guilty]

I can understand objections to the performance of abortions in the first instance, but I can't understand what sense the objection to research derived from fetal tissue makes. It seems to me that such research is pro-life in the same manner that organ donation is pro-life.

[Gandydancer]

It's pro-life like organ donation of organs harvested from Chines Communist political prisoners. Works for those who get new kidneys, but the fact that the original sin is being promoted is hard to ignore If it were cell lines rather than kidneys that were being extracted why would that change anything important?

[David Nieporent]

In much the same way that the Pope's understanding of the issue is poverty-stricken, I guess.

[Gandydancer]

I'm not seeing any relevance to the analogy. But the current Pope is pretty much a Communist, and I am anyway not inclined to think his understanding of anything is better or worse than yours, which is evidently cretinous.

[Don Nico]

Wait, wait David. I'll agree with poverty driven, but how poverty stricken?

[Nelson]

And how about any other medication you take? Or other medical treatments? Those cell lines are ubiquitous in medical research. It would be easier to list the medical products that *haven't* used those cell lines than the ones that have. If you aren't rejecting most medical products, you are definitely engaging in selective outrage.

Also, FWIW, Pfizer and Moderna don't use fetal cells. Don't believe me? Would you believe a pro-life ministry? This is a really well-written, -researched, and -explained article that, if you truly are concerned, should ease your mind: https://www.epm.org/blog/2021/Jan/13/covid-vaccines-fetal-cells.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

"Don't interrupt, he's on a roll."

[Illocust]

Unfortunately, I lost my religion a decade ago and I'm too honest for my own good. So I won't tell them I have religious objections or that I've had the shot. I am going to do everything I can to make absolutely clear to everyone involved that this is not voluntarily. I'm no French noble. I won't help people disassociate from the force and consequences of what they are doing.

[Gandydancer]

If caselaw is enforced I understand that your employer is not allowed to inquire into the nature of your religious exemption. No sign-off from a pastor or priest can be required. I'm not seeing the ethical dilemma over whether you can use a broad definition of "religion" when stating that you have such an exemption if the relevant law already does that. If that troubles you, look into this further.

[not guilty]

Do you have any authority for what you claim to be the state of the law regarding religious exemptions? Especially in an employment at will situation?

[Gandydancer]

I've gotten that mostly from statements by Robert Barnes that I've seen only on video, which are hard to run down, but a quick search turns up this, by EV: https://volokh.com/2010/10/25/the-individualistic-american-law-of-religious-exemptions/

At-will employment will not override anti-religious-discrimination and accommodation laws.

[bernard11]

Does your religion make any other demands on you, or just that one?

[Greta]

My religion doesn't make any demand on me; I live out the teachings of Christ because I love him and want to glorify him with my life! But I'm always happy (and even zealous) to discuss all the things I refuse to do that the general mass of people loves to do because of said faith. So feel free to give examples of other "demands" you're curious about, and I'll give you an answer.

[Nelson]

FWIW, Pfizer and Moderna don’t use fetal cells. This is a really well-written, -researched, and -explained article from a pro-life ministry that should ease your mind: https://www.epm.org/blog/2021/Jan/13/covid-vaccines-fetal-cells.

[Krychek_2]

Illocust, and Greta, please go screw yourselves. (On second thought don't, because that would then mean there would be twice as much of you in the gene pool.) Your anti-vax nuttery is killing our health care system, keeping a virus alive, and causing lots and lots of deaths. Other people have rights too.

[Illocust]

Yes yes, you're against basic human rights. We know. No need to embarrasse yourself in pinochle by flaunting it.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Do you think there is a basic human right to spread a contagious and deadly disease to other people?

[Illocust]

You do not have the right to demand that my bodily autonomy be violated for a miniscule chance that it might prevent a third party passing through my body into someone else's. Your right to swing your fist ends at my face. You are actively demanding my rights be abridged, you're swinging your fist.

[LawTalkingGuy]

No. I actually just want you to personally take your moral duties to other people seriously and to quit being selfish and reckless. Governments (and private employers on their own in many places) wanted that to, but since you failed at that, they are turning to slightly more coercive measures that still give you a choice, even if you find the choice unpalatable.

[Illocust]

The shot is available to whoever wants it. The people who can't take the shot are not only a miniscule number with a non-existent chance of interacting with me but also not protected by others who've taken the shot as Isreal has proven.

This is a purely personal decision over my body autonomy, and instead of taking personal responsibility for how you are advocating the rights of others be taken away for making personal decisions that harm no one but themselves, you are trying to blame me for your actions. Keep your fists to yourself.

[Krychek_2]

No, using fists would be forcibly holding you down while someone injects you, or locking you up until you agree to be vaccinated, neither of which I support. This is simply a case of being an asshat has practical consequences.

[Armchair Lawyer]

So, the cases where as a condition of parole a person must be vaccinated?

How do you feel about that?

[Krychek_2]

I'm for it. Not posing a risk to the health, safety and well being of others strikes me as a legitimate condition of parole.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Hmmm..

1. "Locking you up until you agree to be vaccinated, neither of which I support."

2. But also "Not posing a risk to the health, safety and well being of others strikes me as a legitimate condition of parole"

So....if they refuse to be vaccinated...so they don't get parole as a result....aren't they "locked up"?

That seems to imply you DO support locking people up if they don't get vaccinated, in some circumstances....

[bernard11]

That' s ridiculous, as usual, A.L.

Parole is not a right. People are in prison as a punishment for crimes. They are released on parole on condition, more or less, of good behavior. It is perfectly reasonable to impose vaccination as one condition of parole.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Bernard,

Do you also support keeping people behind bars because they are opposed to getting vaccinated?

Because let's be honest...that's what you're doing by supporting your position.

[Gandydancer]

@bernard: The question was not whether someone has a right to parole but whether Kreycheck was telling the truth when he said...

No, using fists would be forcibly holding you down while someone injects you, or locking you up until you agree to be vaccinated, neither of which I support.

Turns out that he hadn't thought that through.

[Illocust]

Ah good to know your idea of force does not involve the government passing laws and threatening employers with legal actions. As long as you can export your violent use of force to other people you don't have to think about what your really doing here. Congratulations, on your denial of responsibility for your actions.

[Krychek_2]

It's not violent. Nobody is holding a gun to your head. If you don't like it, find another company or become self employed. Isn't that libertarianism 101?

[Bob from Ohio]

"It’s not violent."

He said "force", that is not limited to violence but includes other methods of coercion or compulsion.

As you well know but chose to be literal to make your point.

Wishing destitution on people is mean and hopefully won't happen to you.

[Krychek_2]

But I don't wish destitution on people; I want them to get vaccinated and live long and prosperous lives. If they're not willing to do so, then I think the social consequences should be borne by the people keeping the virus alive.

[Illocust]

You don't want to beat your wife, you just want her to stop making you so angry. Stop blaming the people who's rights you want to violate for your own actions. Take responsibility for yourself and your beliefs.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I don’t wish destitution on people"

This you?

“They can both lose their jobs and end up homeless for as much as I care at this point.”

[Krychek_2]

Choices have consequences, Bob. If they want to keep their jobs they can get vaccinated

[Illocust]

Funny how that arguement has zero substance and could be applied to literally anything. You've set up a scenario were there is no limitation on government power and no human rights. Your arguement could be applied to the first amendment, voting rights, the fourth amendment, literally any right can be taken away at the whim of the USG by your logic.

[Randal]

You don't even have to get vaccinated. You just have to take a test once a week.

[Don Nico]

K_2,
Not holding an actual gun to the head. Of course.
Firing people? Sounds very forceful to me.
Still I am glad that the airline that I choose to fly has vaccinated staff.

[David Nieporent]

The people who can’t take the shot are not only a miniscule number

Or, you know, everyone under the age of 12.

[Illocust]

Your come back is to bring up the demographic with practically no risk of death. Really?

[David Nieporent]

You're acting like a 6 year old, saying, "I don't wanna get a shot. You can't make me get a shot. Waaaahhhhh!!!!!!" and then you have the audacity to say, "Well, actual six year olds probably won't die from me not getting the shot"?

[Illocust]

No one will die from me not getting the shot. Your arguement is confusing risk of an entire population taking an actin with the risk of an individual taking an action. If I was a thousand people you could say someone might (emphasis on might as not everyone would get infected and not every infected would pass it on) die if I didn't get the shot, but as an individual the risk of my actions adversely effecting another person who didn't willingly accept the risk in this situation is miniscule.

[Sarcastr0]

No one will die from me not getting the shot

Unless you're a hermit, you don't know that.

[IPLawyer]

Don't I have the right to not hire you because of the threat you present to me, my employees, and my customers, because of your own personal choice to not be vaccinated against a pandemic disease?

[Illocust]

Except my company was fine to live and let live until Biden's EO threatened them, but you don't care about how other people's rights are getting violated as long as you don't have to personally make the threats.

[Krychek_2]

How is that different from the big bad gummint telling your company that it has to have adequate fire exits in sufficient numbers? Because what we're really talking about it safety.

[Illocust]

Ah so you believe any violation of rights is justifiable no matter how tenuous the connection to other people. Well at least we're finally getting to the point that you're willing to admit your violating my rights.

Though isn't it funny your willing to have my right to bodily autonomy directly violated even though you and I both know that I will not be violating or even causing other people's rights to be violated. No one will be infected or die if I choose to not get the vaccine, but you are willing to use force to make me get the vaccine because someone else entirely who has not had the shot might be infected. You're willing to violate the rights of ten thousand people directly to potentially protect one person indirectly, who you aren't even sure didn't consent to be in that position. That's fucked up no matter how you slice it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That resembles the 'reasoning' of dumbasses who object to motorcycle helmet requirements, seat belt requirements, insurance requirements, drunken driving restrictions, and similar public safety measures.

When a motorcyclist is injured, society scrapes the fool from the road, transports him to a hospital, and provides medical services.

Nobody is forcing anyone to wear a helmet, refrain from drinking, get insurance, or be vaccinated. But if you want to use a public road, or work at a particular job, get vaccinated, get insurances, wear a helmet or seat belt . . . or expect mainstream society to impose consequences.

[David Nieporent]

expect mainstream society to impose consequences.

So much for the alleged alliance!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

People who oppose insurance requirements for drivers/vehicle owners or believe drunken driving is no crime until injury occurs have excused themselves from participation in reasoned debate concerning public affairs in modern America.

Disaffected malcontents have rights, too -- but not the right to be taken seriously by better citizens, or to drive without insurance.

[Gandydancer]

@Kuckland: Quite a series of strawmen you've got there but, no, we won't be distracted from your endorsement of allowing the government to force an employer to fire the unvaxxed.

[Randal]

Dancer, you don't seem to understand the difference between a strawman and an analogy. Let me spell it out.

Illocust is "like" an asshole drunk driver who claims that his right to pour alcohol into his own personal body while driving around is being violated by DUI checkpoints even though the chances of him killing somebody else are "miniscule."

[Gandydancer]

No, Illocust is not remotely like a drunk driver who claims a right to get drunk and drive because the chances of him killing someone are miniscule. As either analogy or argument, that sucks. He proposes to neither do anything
akin to drinking or driving, and the fact that the danger this poses to anyone else is miniscule isn't a claim, it's a fact, and that's important.

[Randal]

I would put the odds that Illocust kills someone at about 1 in 200. Small, but not miniscule. And I think that's probably higher than the chance that a drink driver kills someone.

When you're talking about killing people, the chances don't have to be very high before society gets its hackles up. Especially when the deaths are so easily preventable.

[Sarcastr0]

Out of curiosity, what's the juncture you're using for your back-of-the envelop calculation, Randal?

[Randal]

It's basically R times morbidity. There are of course lots of other terms, but those seem like the main ones to get you to a rough order of magnitude.

[bernard11]

What is the status of "employment at will" in your state?

[Illocust]

Doesn't really matter.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"Doesn’t really matter."

Sure it does. If you are employed at will, you have no right which can be violated, except those rights secured by antidiscrimination laws.

You are claiming that your right to not be vaccinated, and I don't think anybody is contesting that here, includes a right to force somebody to employ you in an unvaccinated condition. Where does that right come from?

[Illocust]

Biden's administration threatened my employer with legal action through the EO. There is no private decisions for your fucked up morality to his behind.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"Biden’s administration threatened my employer with legal action through the EO. "

Which does not violate any right that you actually have.

[Illocust]

How silly of me. Thinking human rights included the right to say no to a medical procedure. I see now how my body belongs first and foremost to the state and they may do with it as they see fit.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"How silly of me."
Indeed.

"Thinking human rights included the right to say no to a medical procedure. I see now how my body belongs first and foremost to the state and they may do with it as they see fit."

Your specific gravity is increasing out of control. Whether or not you have a human right to decline vaccination is not even at issue. You have the ability to decline, if you so desire. It's just that if you do, you will suffer the consequences of your irresponsible decision.

And, be careful of where you get your salad dressing.

[Gandydancer]

@Dog: Just to be clear, you are no longer claiming that Illocust is claiming a "right to force somebody to employ [him] in an unvaccinated condition"?

[Illocust]

You have the right to freedom of speech, but if the government locks you up for that is just the consequences of your actions.

If the USG threatens legal actions against me or the people around me because I exercised my rights, that is the USG infringing upon my rights.

[Nelson]

That is such a broad definition that it has no meaning. Almost anything would violate your "standard".

[Don Nico]

I would think that you do under present employment law.

[Commenter_XY]

My body, my choice. Isn't it really that simple?

My (our?) own tradition says I must affirmatively do things to live (choose life), and this includes vaccination. Further, that I must protect others, and vaccination furthers that goal. So I am triple-vaxxed. That is my choice, rooted in my own tradition.

LTG, I don't think 'mandate' rationale is sound. There is a 'science' argument to be made that for anyone under 30 that have no comorbidities, they do not need a vaccination. In fact, it would be better to let them contract covid-19, and develop natural immunity. The other part that greatly troubles me is these mandates are being done on questionable 'emergency' authority.

If we are to have a 'vaccine mandate', then I would want and demand state legislatures and Congress to explicitly discuss, debate and legislate. That really has not happened yet. It should.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"My body, my choice. Isn’t it really that simple?"

No, because it's making a choice for other people by spreading a disease they don't want around. Vaccine science has been established for a very very long time. It was easy to indulge people on their foolish choices when so many diseases were controlled or even close to eradication. But even before Covid, vaccine resistance was leading to a resurgence of really bad diseases, and that resistance was going to need to be mitigated against by public health authorities sooner or later.

[ducksalad]

You're making one of those arguments that proves everything. If you believe your own argument, you don't do anything monstrous like drive a car, which inflicts risk on others. And no points for riding public transport, you're just paying the driver to harm others for your benefit, which really makes it worse since it's a conspiracy.

The argument you are refusing to engage with is that there are risk levels that are acceptable *even if* they are inflicted on unwilling parties, like pedestrians standing beside the road you are driving on. In the case of COVID, we are arguing that the risk to you as a vaccinated person is quite small and comparable to other risks we find acceptable.

[IPLawyer]

To the extent that cars present danger to others that aren't also choosing to take the risk of driving a vehicle, they SHOULD be mitigated by the state and are...

[Illocust]

Ah good, so as vaccinating is an option for any who want it. There is no arguement for mandates.

[bernard11]

Just don't go using up an ICU bed when you get sick.

[Don Nico]

Bernard,
"First do no harm" does not work that way.

[Illocust]

Wouldn't matter if I did. I'd pay my bill and no one else would be harmed because like in most of the United States there is no shortage of icu beds were I am. Thankfully though the odds of me contracting covid are miniscule as the odds I've already had it are high, and even if I did, I'm young and have no comorbidities so I'm at a near non-existent risk of needing hospitilization. Concern troll someone else.

[ducksalad]

IPLawyer, driving a car presents a risk to people who refuse to drive a car, e.g. pedestrians. Nevertheless, they don't get to ban driving. We tell them to suck it up, or alternatively, stay inside their house.

Which is sort of exactly what we're telling you. Suck up the risk of a free society, and if you can't take it, reduce the small risk even more by staying home.

[Randal]

We do ban unsafe driving. We'll put you in jail for driving drunk. You might think you have a choice to drive drunk if you want to, but we as a society decided to take that choice away as too risky.

Vaccines are the same way. Each individual doesn't get to decide whether the risk is acceptable. Society decides, because vaccines are about stopping the spread, not protecting individuals. That's how it's always been with vaccines.

[Bob from Ohio]

Yes, because it’s making a choice for other people by killing them in the womb.

[Don Nico]

LTG,
In the end your argument boils down to "I know better than you. Now obey."

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yeah. Epidemiologists do know better.

It’s the same reason we have a building code you have to obey: structural engineers know better.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Disaffected, lethally reckless, belligerently ignorant, antisocial, defeating, whining right-wingers are among my favorite culture war casualties.

Where were all of these deplorable losers when schools were requiring vaccination of children for more than a century?

[Don Nico]

I have been doing research epidemiology for almost 2 years. My comments is that this epidemics and responses to it are not black and white as many seem to argue here. There are severla shades of grey, depending on what question that you are asking.
My criticize of the CDC has basically been, recommendations and public comments frequently fly in the face of epidemiological evidence evaluated on medical and statistic terms rather than on political terms.
You will object that public health policy is inherently political. I agree. So the issue is balancing political concerns with evidenced based medicine. Again that is a case of many shades of grey

[grb]

Don Nico : LTG, In the end your argument boils down to “I know better than you. Now obey.”

But LTG does know better than you, doesn't he? Let's look at a statistic : We all know the top-twenty best states per vaccination rates voted for Biden, the worse twenty for Trump. But someone decided the most accurate measure was by county, since every state is a mix of counties often leaning heavily to one side or the other. So:

(1) Counties where Trump won 70% of the vote (or more) have a Covid mortality rate of 47 out of 100,000 people.

(2) Counties where Trump won 32% of the vote (or less) have a Covid mortality rate of 10 out of 100,000 peope.

Live in MAGA World and you have nearly a five-times greater chance of dying from Covid than if you live among normal people. That's the price real people pay for the Right's decision that denialist Covid Birtherism was good for a few poll points of political gain.

You want an example of obedience, Don? Up and down these comments are people who have accepted vaccine mandates their entire lives. Their parents lived with vaccine mandates. Their children live with vaccine mandates. Yet suddenly their ideological handlers push a button marked "outrage" and immediately they're here spouting anti-vaxx gibberish. That's abject slavish obedience well beyond anything LawTalkingGuy demanded.

It's also in thrall to some truly crude & ugly politics, nauseously contemptable in its raw cynicism. LTG's advise looks damn good by contrast. Maybe you should reconsider your handlers?

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/27/briefing/covid-red-states-vaccinations.html

[Don Nico]

grb,
I do not give a damn about politics. Your post is just the same kind of partisan BS that we see here all too often. What you think is epidemiological evidence is a line of partisan yadda-yadda.
Try looking at 100 countires around the world write a few papers that get through peer review then let me know how well you've done

[grb]

Yeah, Don, but your reply wasn't exactly a peer-reviewed paper, was it? It was the total opposite: A child sticking his fingers in both ears and making loud noises until the nasty facts go away

You patrol up & down these comments making excuses for an ideology that has lied about this pandemic in every possible way. The Right lied about Covid's seriousness. They lied about its effects. They lied about the statistics that describe its reach and the medical experts who fight it. They lied with their endless conspiracies and countless quack-cure "miracles".

And they did so for the ugliest & most cynical of reasons.
Why defend that?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Clingers need to stick together, grb.

At this stage of the culture war, that may be the only thing they have left.

Well, other than the whining.

[Don Nico]

grb,
My reply did not need to be about a peer reviewed paper as I comment on your lack of even a semblance of science in your comment.
You may think that your retort is clever but is is a loser as an argument.
Put up real statistics on a global scale unaffected by US politics and we can have an actual discussion.
Until then your posts are not worth reading

[grb]

Don Nico : Until then your posts are not worth reading

OK, you've described why my posts aren't worth reading, so why not attempt to explain why yours are? You're like a little dog that runs around nipping at the heels of anyone who dares criticize your master. There's not much value in that, much less the science you pretend to expound (only when convenient)

Funny how a "science-guy" like yourself spends all his time defending the side that has made a mockery of pandemic science.

[Don Nico]

GRB,
If you don't like my posts mute me. I could not care one bit.
You made a political screed. I identified it as such.

"You patrol up & down these comments making excuses for an ideology that has lied about this pandemic in every possible way."
I do not see the world in black and white as you do. As a research scientist, I approach every claim with skepticism and try to the extent possible to go back to primary data.
Moreover, I try to understand the way that others see the world in engaging with them. That approach infuriates some people. Obviously you cannot stand it. So don't read my posts.

You think that I defend rightwing screed about the virus or about vaccines? You're wrong. But I do not parrot the CDC lines that deny natural immunity. If you do, then you are lying to yourself.

I have as little patience with the sheep as with the lepers. If you don't like that, then don't read the posts.

A comment about your politics does not need peer review. By the way, how many peer-reviewed papers have you every had published?

[Gandydancer]

The paper that grb pointed to has been debunked elsewhere in these comment threads. He doesn't mention it here, but it refers to a short period where the "Trump state" residents are indoor and the "Biden state" residents not. As I recall when it was first brought up the one offering it as evidence included "since June" in his description of the results... I guess grb has learned to conceal that defect in his proffer.

[grb]

Citation?

[Commenter_XY]

LTG....It is a difficult issue and there is no simple answer. It made sense for me personally to get vaxxed (I am in high risk group); and coupled with an elderly family member dying from covid-19 in a nursing home....I was plenty motivated. Add in my religious tradition, and it was a very easy decision for me to make. But that is my circumstance.

I would be much more in tune with a vax mandate if it were passed into law by a state legislature (or Congress), after open and transparent deliberation and debate by our elected representatives. These vax mandates are being promulgated using 'emergency' powers by mostly unelected political appointees. We are well past the point of emergency; there is no more emergency. The emergency ended a year ago. State legislatures and Congress can meet and debate (they do, currently). Most of these legislative bodies are consciously choosing not to directly address the question of vax mandate. That is wrong and does a great disservice to us all.

Today is a vax mandate. What will it be tomorrow? I am concerned that bypassing our legislative process to put these mandates into effect will have serious downside consequences in the future.

You made a fair point about herd immunity and vax refusal.

[StellaLink_the dog]

. . .
"I would be much more in tune with a vax mandate if it were passed into law by a state legislature (or Congress), after open and transparent deliberation and debate by our elected representatives. These vax mandates are being promulgated using ’emergency’ powers by mostly unelected political appointees. " . . .
"Today is a vax mandate. What will it be tomorrow?"

I don't know, maybe a border wall.

[Commenter_XY]

It would be wonderful if the damned wall would get built. It would stop some of the drugs coming across. Fentanyl, in particular, is a major problem.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"It would be wonderful if the damned wall would get built. "

It would be wonderful if everyone who could get vaccinated would.

"Fentanyl, in particular, is a major problem."

How much fentanyl would a border wall stop if a border wall could stop fentanyl? How much fentanyl could have been stopped if the billions of dollars spent impeding the migration of javalinas had been spent where the fentynal is actually coming in?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" Today is a vax mandate. "

That seems silly. Vaccine requirements have been common in America for more than a century.

Children have been vaccinated for decades, with fewer tantrums than ostensibly adult clingers are tossing about today.

[David Nieporent]

There is a ‘science’ argument to be made that for anyone under 30 that have no comorbidities, they do not need a vaccination. In fact, it would be better to let them contract covid-19, and develop natural immunity.

There is no reasonable argument that it's "better" to develop natural immunity than to be vaccinated. Even if it turns out that natural immunity is as good as, or even slightly better than, vaccination at preventing future infection, that doesn't account for the fact that one had to get the infection in the first place.

[Don Nico]

David,
To be sure. It is seldom better to get sick if you can get a similar result without getting sick.

[Commenter_XY]

Ah, but the vast majority of covid-19 cases are quite mild, Don Nico. You know that. This is a case where for young people <30 with no comorbidities, just let nature take its course. It would be cheaper, and more effective in the long run. It would also allow for more vaccine distribution world-wide.

No one is really talking much about the moral trade-off involved with administering a vaccine to a young person with no comorbidities in the US ahead of an elderly person in Ghana who is far more likely to die from covid-19 (simply because of their age).

I mean, the data are crystal clear worldwide. Young people <30 with no comorbidities do not really have to worry about covid-19; it does not affect them like it does the elderly. That finding is consistent no matter where in the world you go.

[StellaLink_the dog]

But, the more that you limit infections among the young, the more that you limit infections among the older. So far with the so-called "breakthrough" infections we've been lucky, as I understand it, in that those who are infected while vaccinated are unlikely to require hospitalization. Can we count on that luck if the disease is allowed to spread among the young into the future?

[Commenter_XY]

Stella...the data on breakthrough infections is in its early stages. I don't think we know enough yet to make definitive statements on how and why it is happening, or how prevalent. I am not dismissing that, I am only saying we just don't know yet.

We cannot ever count on luck.

[StellaLink_the dog]

What I am saying is that so far, it looks like "break through" infections are not as debilitating as initial infections were. I am saying that we are, so far, lucky that it appears that the infections that vaccinated people are somewhat mild. Or, if you prefer, we appear to be lucky. If all that is true, I don't think that we can count on infections among the vaccinated continuing to be mild forever as, as you say, these are early stages and, very importantly, the longer the virus remains widespread, the more chance there is of more, and possibly deadlier, variants appearing.

I suspect we mostly agree on this.

[Don Nico]

C_XY,
with respect to those under 30, your comment is statistically true. In fact that explains why fatalities in sub-Sahatan Africa are low.
But there are the unlucky ones. In the end it is a crap shoot. You put down your money and you take your chances.

[Commenter_XY]

That is part of the point, one you picked up upon. We have sufficient worldwide data to know exactly who needs to be prioritized for vaccines. The dataset is huge; genetically diverse. It still comes down to some essentials. To reduce death, the ones to absolutely prioritize for vax are 65+ with or without comorbidities, immunocompromised. That's the lions share of death right there.

To me, if you are going to make a vax mandate, at least make it precisely targeted to the highest 'at risk' population. That is where state legislatures and Congress is supposed to come in. And they are deliberately choosing not to explicitly discuss, debate and legislate about this. That is the bigger danger.

[Brett Bellmore]

Because they're not trying to cure a disease at this point. They're trying to "cure" the population's refusal to fall in line when given orders. They're trying to "cure" our stubborn insistence on being free.

This might have started out as a medical exercise, but it long since mutated into something much darker. You can see that in Biden's raging against people who refuse to obey him.

[grb]

Commenter_XY : ".... US ahead of an elderly person in Ghana .... "

I'm shaking my head in wonder. Apparently Commenter_XY has reached the absolute end of the anti-vaxx talking points his handlers programmed into his skull. That has to be the case, given he's suddenly pretending to give a damn about the distribution of resources between the United States & Ghana. Wanna bet you search thru years of comments and never see another example of his tender sensibilities on THAT subject?

OK, we get it: The Right chose denialist Covid Birtherism as the perfect agitprop to stoke their base. Since then they've taught their followers to believe the disease isn't serious, its effects are exaggerated, the statistics are phony, people's deaths aren't real, the medical experts are evil villains, and secret miracle cures are being hidden from us.

They've fought tooth&nail against every single measure to fight the pandemic, right up-to & including the vaccines. We've grown accustomed to seeing an immediate & vigorous push-back from the Right opposing any new tactic against Covid, using every possible excuse as justification.

Every possible excuse. We're used to that by now. But seeing XY pretend to be worried over the Ghanaians takes it to a whole other level.

[Don Nico]

C_XY,
I agree with you that the health risks for a person under 30 may be greater from vaccine side effects than from contracting COVID-19. However, I don't know of any on-point studies with sufficiently many subjects to be statistically meaningful.

[Nelson]

Vaccine mandates have been legislated and upheld by the Supreme Court for roughly 100 years. We don't have to reinvent the wheel.

[Life of Brian]

Do you think there is a basic human right to spread a contagious and deadly disease to other people?

Do you think there's a basic governmental obligation to even attempt to justify gunpoint-level vaccination for this particular "contagious and deadly disease" as opposed to any other endemic respiratory virus?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Not at gunpoint. So there's that

And they have justified it over and over and over again, you just don't want to listen. No matter how many health authorities explain this , you can't and won't be convinced. No matter how much data there is on covid deaths and vaccine efficacy you won't be convinced. No matter how many ICU and death-bed pleas from regretful people there are you won't be convinced. No matter how many doctors and nurses say that they have capacity problems at hospitals you won't be convinced. No matter how many personal stories about non-covid related care being disrupted due to anti-vaxxers taking up space you won't be convinced. No matter how many even more benign personal stories about discomfort, illness, missed work and events there are due to catching Covid you won't be convinced. The time for convincing has clearly passed, and employers, public health authorities, and society are tired of dicking around with people like you.

[Life of Brian]

What a magnificent display of table pounding without a whiff of substance. Thanks for so resoundingly confirming the "no" answer to my question.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Thanks for proving my point that can’t and won’t be convinced. Literally just pointed out all the ways that mandates are now justified and you call it “table pounding without substance.”

[Life of Brian]

Literally just pointed out all the ways that mandates are now justified

No, you just belched out an overwrought list of Big Scary Things without attempting the actual hard work of showing that those Big Scary Things have never happened before with any other endemic respiratory virus. You know -- the actual subject of my question.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I don’t need to! This is blog. Interminable amounts of data and personal experiences explain how Covid isn’t just another respiratory disease and you just don’t care.

[Life of Brian]

I don’t need to! This is blog.

Thank you for your candor, a bit late in the game though it was. I think we're done here.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yes we are. You’re gonna get vaccinated or put up with the consequences of being a selfish and stubborn jerk-ass reckless endangering other people for your own selfish jerk-ass reasons. I hope you’re proud of yourself.

[Life of Brian]

I hope you’re proud of yourself.

What a curious choice of words to follow your final embarrassing display of bullying, grade-school invective.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Brian. It’s not bullying, but it is invective, because you deserve it. You deserve shame. You deserve ostracism. You are putting other people in danger for selfish reasons. That’s closer to bullying than anything I’m doing. Me telling you you’re stubborn and self is the consequence of you being stubborn and selfish. Don’t like it? Don’t be stubborn and selfish.

Again I hope you’re proud of yourself. You’re costing people’s health and lives by being selfish.

[Life of Brian]

because you deserve it. You deserve shame. You deserve ostracism.

This is a really weird pivot you're attempting. The original subject was whether you could justify coerced vaccination for this particular respiratory virus above all others. You couldn't, and to try to distract from that you've retreated to screaming about how I'm a bad person. You're just stacking more bricks on the wall demonstrating this is nothing but a poorly-disguised power play.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Brian. Get this through your thick skull: doctors and public health officials have made the extensive case about this particular disease. This is in addition to countless personal stories about the effects of this particular disease. You don't care about any of this, and keep insisting people justify things to you. You do this knowing you won't be convinced. This is why you're a bad person.

[Life of Brian]

doctors and public health officials have made the extensive case about this particular disease

And by that you mean specific people that agree with you that you choose to elevate above all others and use as a billy club in your twisted little domination exercise. There are plenty of doctors and public health officials both in the US and around the world who are against coerced vaccination, even when setting aside the increasing understanding that current vaccines don't, to put it kindly, have a clear cost-benefit advantage for lower-risk individuals.

Either you know that and are choosing to ignore it in favor of your "team" per above, or you badly need to spend a bit more time outside your echo chamber.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“ twisted little domination exercise.”

No dingus. I just want to stop wearing a mask all the time and stop constantly worrying about the health of my family, friends, coworkers, and even jerk-ass non-experts like you. I’m worried about you to. Just because you’re a jerk-ass doesn’t mean you or the people you love should be sick.

And you’re just some guy who is picking a team of doctors and is in an echo chamber too. Unless you have conducted your own peer reviewed double blind study your “purported” is meaningless garbage that is putting other people at risk.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“Purported research”

[Life of Brian]

I just want to stop wearing a mask all the time and stop constantly worrying about [my tongue]

Then stop. Just stop perpetuating the irrational mass hysteria. It's crystal clear at this point that's the only thing that has a genuine shot at snapping folks out of this.

Unless you have conducted your own peer reviewed double blind study

LOL. We wouldn't be in the mess we're in today had we not mass-overreacted based on a raft of breathless preprints. Buzz off with the sudden sanctimony.

[Illocust]

Lawtalkingguy your pride is not worth violating other people's rights. You can take off your mask and stop living in fear today if you wanted to. You not wanting to stop doing something until an arbitrary metric is met, is not a justification for intentionally, purposefully, and directly taking actions that strip other people of the rights to their own body.

My vaccination status doesn't effect you. Your masking status doesn't effect me. I'm willing to leave you alone with your choices, but you are not willing to extend the same consideration to me or anyone else. Stop looking for any excuse or tenuous connection you can possible make to justify your violations of others rights, and learn to respect your fellow man's right to make decisions about their own body.

[M L]

What a thread.

The vaccine nazis come off as hysterically angry little toddlers, in a perpetual psychotic power struggle against anyone anywhere not bending to their will and way of thinking. They are neo-Puritans.

[grb]

M L : "The vaccine nazis..."

Pretty hilarious. ML has lived with vaccine mandates his entire life, as has his parents, his siblings, his children, friends and neighbors. So why put on such an irrational show?

The handlers in charge of what he thinks pushed a button marked "outrage", and he dutifully complied with fireworks & hysterics. That's pretty amazing to me; I can't begin to imagine being that easy to manipulate. The whole of the Right's political base suddenly became anti-vaxx freaks overnight.

Just because their handlers told them to.

[Don Nico]

Brian almost always delivers meaningless outbursts. However, side effects of the covid vaccines are real.
While I consider then acceptable risks for most people, they are not acceptable for some. My son has a serious persistent side effect; he would be unwise to take a booster shot. I had a minor persisting side-effect, I'll get a booster when offered.
I find the level of rhetoric dividing the country into sheep and lepers deplorable and unhelpful.

[LawTalkingGuy]

That’s listening to doctors and no “mandate” has ever said bona fide medical reasons weren’t legitimate.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

People with legitimate medical reasons should -- and, I believe, are -- excused from vaccination requirements in all but extreme circumstances.

People without legitimate reason to avoid vaccination -- childish superstition does not count -- should get vaccinated or accept the consequences like adults rather than whimpering like babies.

[Don Nico]

LTG,
Then mandates have to say that they allow room for bona fide medical advice.

[IPLawyer]

Says the guy telling everyone he's being forced to take a vaccine at gunpoint. Take your histrionic bullshit to somewhere it plays.

[Life of Brian]

Says the too-clever lawyer who doggedly insists on reading the expression "gunpoint-level" as a literal firearm rather than a degree of coercion. Go back to your briefing or wherever it is you think that sad stuff plays.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Get vaccinated or prepare to be shunned by your betters. The mainstream's patience with respect to whining misfits is waning.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"Says the too-clever lawyer who doggedly insists on reading the expression “gunpoint-level” as a literal firearm rather than a degree of coercion."

What? "gunpoint-level" doesn't mean "gunpoint-level?"

[Illocust]

No it doesn't dog. It is used by people in the criminal justice field to refer to things other than literally holding a gun to someone's head. Threatening to kill someone, rape them, burn down their house, leave them destitute unless they comply with your demands all get referred to that way. It's why your boss can't demand that you fuck them or you'll lose your job in even right to work states.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"No it doesn’t dog. It is used by people in the criminal justice field to refer to things other than literally holding a gun to someone’s head."

Well, then, "people in the criminal justice field " need remedial English training with emphasis on the proper and improper use of metaphors.

"Threatening to kill someone, rape them, burn down their house, leave them destitute unless they comply with your demands all get referred to that way. " All of which might very well be violative of some right or another. Unlike the current question, which is not violative of any right at all.

Just for the record, I doubt the veracity of your claim that "people in the criminal justice field " use this as a metaphor for the imposition of reasonable work force rules. I don't believe that that level of silliness is widespread among "people in the criminal justice field ."

[Armchair Lawyer]

Did you know that approximately 20% of the illegal immigrants crossing the border currently have COVID, but Biden is letting them in anyway?

[Krychek_2]

Did you know that approximately 75% of the statistics you encounter on the internet are made up?

[Don Nico]

K_2,
Could be. That is why one needs to rely on high quality sources of raw data and do the numbers oneself. I strongly recommend, Oxford University's "Our World in Data."

[Gandydancer]

Did you know that approximately 75% of the statistics you encounter on the internet are made up?

For the ones I encounter from you, like this one, my estimate is closer to 100%.

I'm not going to look it up, but there's a city in TX that has been giving COVID antibody tests to illegals dropped off at its bus station by the Feds for trips further into the interior. Lots of positives. No reason to think they're making this up.

[Sarcastr0]

Wrong.

That number came from deportations. After they were held in close quarters for who knows how long awaiting deportation.

Someone lied to you.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Ah, the old chicken-egg problem.

You've got to catch them to test them for COVID. But once you test them, well, "they've been kept in close quarters", so who knows what the rate was before you actually caught them...

Not like they're in close quarters when being smuggled across the border in a van....

[Sarcastr0]

No, it's not a chicken and egg problem - it's a sample bias problem.

That only 20% have COVID after marinating in detention for who knows how long is notable.

Beyond that, that number says nothing about Covid rates of immigrants entering the US, legal or illegal.

[Absaroka]

"after marinating in detention for who knows how long"

Does the ??INS?? typically wait an extended time before testing? You'd think the general practice at any kind of detention facility[1] would be to test at arrival, so you could try and keep sick people separate fro the healthy.

[1]Heck, any kind of facility. Hospitals take your temp or whatever screening they are doing on arrival, not at some later time.

[Sarcastr0]

I Googled it.

Migrants are not tested for Covid in Border Patrol custody unless they show symptoms, but all are tested when they leave Border Patrol custody, according to DHS officials.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/18-percent-migrant-families-leaving-border-patrol-custody-tested-positive-n1276244

A cargo-cult policy without any possible value.

But that's what's going on.

[Absaroka]

"Migrants are not tested for Covid in Border Patrol custody unless they show symptoms, but all are tested when they leave Border Patrol custody"

Thanks. Yeah, that sounds a little weird.

[Gandydancer]

Then there's this story. Not deportations. Identify the liars (other than you): https://ktrh.iheart.com/featured/michael-berry/content/2021-03-03-freed-illegals-test-positive-for-covid-are-still-allowed-travel-by-bus/ (This just is the first instance that came up on Duckduckgo. The Brownsville program continued and the number of transiting positives has since increased greatly.)

[DaveM]

See, there you've lost your case. You cannot prove that person A spread a contagious and deadly disease to person B. Therefore you have no standing to require person A do anything. And even if you could so prove, your remedy would be limited to just Person A and none other.

So no, you cannot just demand that people take a vaccine.

It amazes me that on a legal blog -- of all places -- a non-lawyer has to explain how this works.

[Sarcastr0]

It amazes me that on a legal blog — of all places — a non-lawyer has to explain how this works.

LOL. Your take on standing is...idiosyncratic.

[Don Nico]

S_0,
Don't be too tough on him for that reason. There is a lot more serious about the comment to criticize.

[Don Nico]

Dave,
"You cannot prove that person A spread a contagious and deadly disease to person B."
In fact one can often make just a case.
My 99-yo mom caught COVID-19 last December. The only contact was obvious. She luckily had a mild case and has subsequently been vaccinated. Her contact got very ill but recovered.
That does not mean that the state can or cannot demand that people get vaccinated. Your argument is hollow.
For the most part almost all COVID-naive people should get vaccinated. For the COVID recovered the case is far less clear

[DaveM]

"The only contact was obvious."

Yeah, no. That's not proof. That's assumption.

[Don Nico]

It is not assumption. She had no other contacts within the incubation period.
Don't mouth off about things about which you have zero knowledge

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Vaccine requirements have been commonplace in America for more than a century.

Why the recent change in attention and position among clingers? Anything other than general disaffectedness and crankiness?

[Greta]

Yay! I'm a clinger. You don't know how long I've been waiting to have this honor. Luv you, Arthur.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Your prize will be replacement by your betters.

[Greta]

Thank you!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Thank you. Your compliance is appreciated.

[Greta]

I'm going to make lots of babies once I'm married! I want five minimum 😉

[Bob from Ohio]

Good for you. Don't let a**hole "liberals" bully you.

[LawTalkingGuy]

They aren’t? The only bullies I see are Natalist proto-fascist freaks like JD Vance.

[Bob from Ohio]

I was referring to Krychek's mean comments here.

[Krychek_2]

Bob calling someone else mean? Now that's unintentional irony if I've ever seen it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How do you propose to fund the proper education of five children, Greta? You might wish to review tuition charges at good schools -- and carefully evaluate your economic prospects -- before launching five dependents.

(That's Jerry Garcia on pedal steel. The story is he traded that performance for harmony lessons.)

[Don Nico]

K_2,
Why the mean spirited response? I don't know Illocust's motivation, but we do know Greta's.
Who are you or I to ridicule her beliefs?
We don't need a civil war over SARS-CoV-2.

[Krychek_2]

Don, because I'm tired of still having to deal with a disease that would have been eradicated months ago if everyone had gotten vaccinated. Their decision not to vaccinate, regardless of their reasons, means that our health care system is being crushed, a lot of people are still dying, a lot of restrictions are still in place, a lot of drain on the economy, and all of this could have been over months ago if not for people like Illocust and Greta. So I'm sorry, but I'm completely out of sympathy for them; my sympathy is reserved for the innocent victims of Covid who have it because of their stupidity. They can both lose their jobs and end up homeless for as much as I care at this point.

[Don Nico]

K_2,
"that would have been eradicated months ago if everyone had gotten vaccinated"
That claim does not hold up to medical data. In particular the delta virus led to a large rebound in both number of cases and mortality in Israel despite a very widespread and successful vaccination campaign. I wish I could post a graph here, but you could make your own from the data in Oxford's Our World in Data.
Based on looking at data in many countries, some with and some without extensive vaccination programs, your claim that " all of this could have been over months ago " all of this could have been over months ago" is wishful thinking.
In the meanwhile, spreading and encouraging mean-spirited thinking does not aid the US or any other country

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If you don't think vaccine avoidance has intensified and extended substantially our problems, that sounds like the level of thinking that makes one a conservative.

You are welcome to issue a pass to lethally reckless, belligerently ignorant jerks, likely because so many of them are your political allies. I see no reason to appease those antisocial, science-disdaining, dangerous losers.

[grb]

Don Nico : "That claim does not hold up to medical data"

Typical weaseling from the Don. Was Krychek_2's comment a bit exaggerated? Sure; even with near-total vaccination, Covid would just be controlled, not eradicated. So Nico gets to defend his science-denying tribe without dealing with the real substance of K2's anger. Because here's some "medical data" that illustrates the facts behind that frustration. From Science News, 31Aug21:

"One of those charts shows that from January 24 to July 24, vaccinated individuals were hospitalized with COVID-19 at a much lower cumulative rate than unvaccinated individuals. And the difference in rates between the two groups has only grown over time. By late July, a total of about 26 adults per 100,000 vaccinated people had been hospitalized for COVID-19. That’s compared with about 431 hospitalized people for every 100,000 unvaccinated individuals — a rate roughly 17 times as high as for those who were vaccinated. The data come from 13 states, including California, Georgia and Utah."

Everyone is invited to put popcorn in the microwave and sit back to wait&see what sciency equivocation Nico will use to explain this away.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/covid-coronavirus-vaccines-hospital-cases-rates-unvaccinated

[Don Nico]

" So Nico gets to defend his science-denying tribe without dealing with the real substance of K2’s anger. "
More of your BS, grb. But the techniques is boringly monotonous. You try to stick words into people's mouths and then shout them down. In other words your criticisms are lies.

I am not so impressed with your quote as the substance of the quote is the obvious consequence of having vaccines with efficacy above 90% and efficiency above 80%. For that reason getting vaccinated makes good sense for most people, even now when the efficacy has dropped to 60 - 70%. Now I want you to find a specific post in which I have written anything different.

What I have complained about is CDC's pigheaded refusal to recognize natural immunity and the bona fide medical studies by credible research groups that have found that natural immunity is at least as protective as vaccine induced immunity. For people with natural immunity vaccination has a most a marginal benefit if and at all and it does carry a risk of long term side effects.

Go ahead and eat your popcorn and if you're polite, you won't talk while eating.

[grb]

Krychek's hyperbole aside (and the nitpicking opportunities it presented you, a champion & situational nitpicker) my understanding of his frustration is this:

(1) With the highest possible vaccination rates the spread of covid could be significantly limited, its mortality rate reduced much further, its effect on the U.S. healthcare system lessened as well, and its societal impact also brought down to a more manageable level.

(2) We have the means to achieve these objectives with multiple effective vaccines available both in overabundant quantities and thru an effective delivery system.

(3) We haven't remotely reached those objectives, but not because (per Don) left-wingers are hurtful meanies in their speech, or (per Don) natural immunity might equal the effectiveness of vaccines, or (per Don) the CDC made mistakes in this pandemic, or (per Don) (insert random quibble here).

(4) Instead, it's because one side of our political spectrum has made Covid Denialism a core propaganda message, up-to & including demonizing vaccines themselves. This often includes lying to a degree far beyond K2's exaggeration, but you strangely remain untriggered by that, Don. It also involves aggressive and mean-spirited language, which you have a aversion to (at least when directed against anyone on the Right)

It would be useful to know what societal benefits would result from the maximum possible vaccination rates that are medically warranted - by your own words. That might shift the discussion away from nipping at Krychek_2's heels to the larger picture: The damage to the country from systematic Covid Birtherism.

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem is that the maximum possible vaccination rates that are medically warranted are only achievable by the US ceasing to be a free country. At some point you have to consider the tradeoff between medical gains and loss of liberty, unless maybe you're also planning on forced calisthenics and weekly weigh-ins at gun point.

But maybe the folks in favor of mandating vaccination would be down with that, too.

[Randal]

Wow Brett, you actually said it. The reason we can't get to maximum vaccination is because a bunch of people are holding out for no reason other than to re-live the power plays of being four. "Just eat this broccoli, it's good for you." "No!" I mean, we all knew that, but you finally said it.

Would you like your vaccine delivered by airplane? Ok, here comes the Vaccine Airlines plane, open wide so it can land!

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "The problem is that the maximum possible vaccination rates that are medically warranted are only achievable by the US ceasing to be a free country"

Oh for heaven's sake, Brett : You've lived with the maximum possible vaccination rates with Hepatitis B, Diphtheria, Polio, Chickenpox, Measles, Mumps, and Rubella - many of these these thru vaccine mandates. You've lived with vaccine mandates, your parents lived with mandates, your siblings lived with mandates, your friends, neighbors & coworkers lived with mandates

Hasn't it ONCE occurred to you to question why your handlers insist you become anti-vaxx now ?!?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Disaffected, contrarian, antisocial clingers are among my favorite culture war casualties. The American mainstream can't stomp these right-wing misfits into cultural irrelevance fast enough.

[Don Nico]

Randal:
We haven’t remotely reached those objectives, but not because (per Don) left-wingers are hurtful meanies in their speech, or (per Don) natural immunity might equal the effectiveness of vaccines, or (per Don) the CDC made mistakes in this pandemic, or (per Don) (insert random quibble here)."
Let's have some quality scientific papers cited to justify your dismissal of natural immunity. Let's hear you explain the scientific basis of your claim; you cannot because there is none. The denial of a widely measured and substantiated form of immunity is not a quibble except for the ideologue. The remainder of that comment is unfalsifiable and therefore not worthy of comment.

"but you strangely remain untriggered by that, Don. "
you love to lie Randal. Deliberately lie.
I have complained and posted about "antivaccism" in many posts. But you are unable to distinguish between the farout "all vaccines cause autism" and bona fide objections about the risks of this vaccine to a particular individual.
Go ahead and enjoy your lies.

[grb]

Nico,

Lord have mercy, but you're such a dunce!

First of all, Randal isn't the object of your spittle-spraying spleen, I am. I put on my mackintosh, so spare him & spray away.

Secondly, since you're too dim-witted to understand what was written, I'll explain it slowly: The problems preventing maximum vaccination rates (and practical control of covid) isn't your litany of hobby-horse-crusade topics - including "natural immunity". If debate on efficacy of vaccines vs natural immunization was the only problem we have, we'd have no problem. The real problem is the large segment of our population that has been told to resist anti-Covid measures. There will come a time, Don Nico, where even YOU won't be able to keep changing the subject.

Third : And I tried to help out on that front (you're welcome). I thought maybe I can get you to summarize the societal benefits of maximum vaccination rates. Maybe then your wandering attention span wouldn't drift off to snarling invective and your itty-bitty list of pet peeves. Needless to say, you didn't bite. Not a Big Picture kinda of guy, are you?

[Don Nico]

Oh, grb,
You are such a dunce. You think all that your lie about is gospel truth. And then you feel slighted that you are ignored.
\As for dimwitted, speak of yourself. You do little more than parrot the drivel spewed by your partisan masters. There is not a single original thought in what you write. Not a single falsifiable comment. Just invective and insult that is pathetic.

As the effectiveness of the vaccines drops to 50% and less due to simple dclining immunity as has been observed and due to evolvution of the virus that is more and more effective at masking the RBD of the spike, you wishful thinking will get more and more out of touch with possible realities.

Had vaccines been available in the Q4 of 2020, the idea of squelching the virus with force vaccination might have worked. But the vaccines were not available.

I have written over and over that I recommend that people get vaccination. But I don't scream that those that don't are lepers. That is your game. You can distort what I write ll that you want. You will only remain a liar who prefers to be ignorant of the complexities of this virus and its evolution.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" But I don’t scream that those that don’t are lepers. "

Of course not. Clingers flatter and appease other clingers.

Another reason they should not expect better Americans to respect them.

[Absaroka]

"that would have been eradicated months ago if everyone had gotten vaccinated"

Are you sure? My sense of the other coronavirii is that they are generally endemic, rather than eliminated (like e.g. polio). We essentially all contract them as young kids when the mortality is very low, and thus acquire enough immunity that subsequent infections are rarely more than 'the common cold'.

It may be that covid-19 is different than the other coronaviruses (especially if gain of function research was involved), but my first guess would be that it will behave like its closest kin.

[Krychek_2]

No, I'm not "sure" in the sense of 100%. So I shall rephrase: Most of the pain and misery caused by the Covid virus over the past several months would have been avoided. How's that?

[Don Nico]

Your rephrasing is also likely incorrect and only what you wish. It just is inconsistent with medical data across the world

[StellaLink_the dog]

Is it not true that the vast majority of hospitalizations in the US during this surge have been among the unvaccinated? How about around the world. Is worldwide experience in alignment with what I infer US experience to be? Perhaps you can refer me to one of your peer reviewed papers that you mentioned.

[Gandydancer]

Is it not true that the vast majority of hospitalizations in the US during this surge have been among the unvaccinated?

You'd think the CDC would cover that, but I'm not easily seeing it. Take a look: https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/COVIDNet/COVID19_3.html

What dates do you have in mind for "this surge", btw? That little bump since June?

[Bob from Ohio]

"They can both lose their jobs and end up homeless for as much as I care at this point."

Nice and tolerant of you.

[Krychek_2]

Bob accusing someone else of intolerance? Now that's unintentional irony if I've ever seen it.

[Greta]

Because of me, people are dying, the healthcare system is being crushed, other Americans are living under restrictions, and in addition, I'm draining the economy. Man, I'm worse than every villain in human history, chief of sinners that I am!

If I just get vaccinated, the evidence shows that no more people will die from COVID, the healthcare system will thrive, other Americans will enjoy every freedom possible, and the economy will rebound.

[bernard11]

Because of me, people are dying, the healthcare system is being crushed,

It is certainly true that in some places this is happening due to the high number of unvaccinated people.

Love thy neighbor, Greta.

[Greta]

No, it is certainly not true that by existing I, or anyone else, is at fault for anyone's death by not being vaccinated. It will never be true, not for COVID, not for influenza, and not for the measles, the mumps, hepatitis, or any other virus or disease.

But it is always wonderful and sorely needed to remind people at all times to love thy neighbor. I do love my neighbors, Bernard, including you. Keep up spreading God's commands, that's awesome!

[StellaLink_the dog]

Your being not vaccinated increases the risks for other people who have not been vaccinated and also for those of us who have already been vaccinated, though our risks are, for the moment, apparently, less. Among those who have not been vaccinated are those who cannot be vaccinated for legitimate medical reasons. As is the case for some of the other diseases you mentioned, willingly un-vaccinated people increase the risk for those people who can't get vaccinated -- transplant recipients, perhaps, cancer survivors, perhaps. So, I dispute that your claim, "No, it is certainly not true that by existing I, or anyone else, is at fault for anyone’s death by not being vaccinated" can be stated as "true."

[grb]

Greta : "No, it is certainly not true that by existing I, or anyone else, is at fault for anyone’s death by not being vaccinated"

Thou shall not lie, Greta - not even to yourself. But let's not dwell on the negative of your crude obvious self-deception. The Pope makes a more positive appeal:

“Thanks to God’s grace and to the work of many, we now have vaccines to protect us from Covid-19,” he said in the video. He added that vaccines “bring hope to end the pandemic, but only if they are available to all and if we collaborate with one another.”

Pope Francis went on to say that getting a Covid jab that is “authorized by the respective authorities” is an “act of love.” Helping other do the same, he said, is also an act of love. “Love for oneself, love for our families and friends, and love for all peoples. Love is also social and political.” The Pope noted that social and political love is built up through “small, individual gestures capable of transforming and improving societies.”

“Getting vaccinated is a simple yet profound way to care for one another, especially the most vulnerable,” he said. Pope Francis then prayed to God that “each one of us can make his or her own small gesture of love.”

Poor old guy. He just isn't as skilled at political posturing as Greta.

[Don Nico]

Wow!
Who said Greta follows the Pope advice?

"Thou shall not lie, Greta – not even to yourself. But let’s not dwell on the negative of your crude obvious self-deception. "
Why not just quote the Holy father without adding your arrogant pomposity.

[grb]

Don Nico : A charge of "arrogant pomposity" coming from you ?!?

Grab a mirror, dude.....

[Don Nico]

grb,
I looked in the mirror and saw your face. Own up to your own self-righteous arrogance.

[Greta]

I do not, and will never, follow the pope's advice. If the pope is what brings you to know Jesus, though, I'm happy for you to listen to him and explore what he has to say, grb!

Stella, nope, it's certainly not true that by increasing the risk for the unvaccinated or vaccinated by being unvaccinated (which in itself is not true, I don't increase their risk; they increase their own risk, regardless of whether they can or cannot take the vaccine), that I am at fault for people dying. Still. Not. True.

[Randal]

Sorry Greta, you are responsible for people dying. You are making a decision to act a certain way, and you knowingly chose the way which will likely cause some people to die. I'm not sure how much more clear it could be.

If you were walking along the road and saw a man who'd been robbed and left for dead, and you decided to do nothing and let him die, I don't think you then get to say "well, I wasn't the one who robbed him."

[grb]

Randal : "Sorry Greta, you are responsible for people dying"

The problem, Randal, is that Greta doesn't see it that way. Yes, she helps extend the reach of a disease thru her anti-vaxx gibberish and that leads to more deaths - but our Greta sees consequences like that as too impossibly abstract to grasp.

What's real for her is owning the Libs - full-stop.

I don't doubt that's a full-time religion for her, as nearly-important or as-important as the other one she professes. Poor Don Nico chivalrously rushes to her aid, not noticing Greta is having the time of her life. She's owning the Libs! What are extra deaths compared to that?

[Bob from Ohio]

"What’s real for her is owning the Libs – full-stop."

That's just a lie.

She stated her reason, the vaccines contain or are ultimately derived from abortions.

You don't have to agree those are valid but you shouldn't make up straw-woman reasons for what she thinks.

[Don Nico]

Grb, Has the nerve to start with "Sorry, Greta."
But he is not sorry. It is just another of his lies

[grb]

Newsflash : I don't think Greta's professed "reason" for being anti-vaxx explains her flouncing gleeful performance in the comments above. In fact, I'm damn sure that's not the case. You may find it convenient to give her bullshit credence, but I'm not suffering under the same handicap.

[Randal]

Don, you got me and grb mixed up again. But anyway, I am sorry for Greta and her victims! I don't want people to get sick and die, I just want them to get vaccinated. In Greta's case, that seems to mean telling her some hard truths that she probably doesn't want to hear.

WWJD? Get vaccinated of course! (That's assuming he doesn't have natural immunity, which he probably might.)

[Don Nico]

"Poor Don Nico chivalrously rushes to her aid, not noticing Greta is having the time of her life. She’s owning the Libs! What are extra deaths compared to that?"
More lies and BS from the self-righteous grb.
If Greta is having fun jerking you around, good for her.

[DaveM]

Sue your employer for violating your constitutional right to privacy.

[Illocust]

I'm honestly looking at my options. This really isn't okay, and I can't really call myself a good person if I do nothing.

[Krychek_2]

Nobody's telling you to do nothing. Get the vaccine. That's doing something.

[Illocust]

Shockingly they have not yet developed a vaccination against people wanting to violate the rights of others, but thank you for your completely irrelevant contribution.

[StellaLink_the dog]

You do not have the right that you claim to have. You do not have the right to force your employer to keep employing you when you refuse to accept the reasonable requirements imposed upon you.

[Illocust]

My employer was happy to employ me as I am. Biden's administration has threatened them into acting differently. Please try to keep on topic.

[StellaLink_the dog]

I am on topic. Your employer is demanding, according to you, that you get vaccinated if you want to continue your employment. You don't like it and imagine that it violates some right. What, exactly, is that right, and where does it come from. Let's assume that it is the Biden adminstration which is violating this imagined right. Where does this right to be free from downhill flowing vaccine mandates, implemented to slow the spread of a serious disease, come from?

[Illocust]

Basic human ownership of my body. I have the right to choose what medical treatment I undergo.

[Illocust]

Also let's just cut things off at the pass here. No the USG can't order someone's employer to violate their employee's rights on the government's behalf. If they could, someone would have long ago thought to order every business to force their employees to vote for them.

[David Nieporent]

Also let’s just cut things off at the pass here. No the USG can’t order someone’s employer to violate their employee’s rights on the government’s behalf.

It's true that the government can't order an employer to do something that the government can't itself do. So if the government ordered an employer to forcibly vaccinate its employees, that would likely not be permitted. But firing someone for not being vaccinated doesn't in fact violate their rights.

[Sarcastr0]

Basic human ownership of my body. I have the right to choose what medical treatment I undergo.

Usually conservatives don't like it when you talk about rights not in the Constitutional text!

This one certainly doesn't seem inviolate. What about requirements about polio or MMR or whatever other vaccines for employment and the like?

Plus, of course, at-will employers generally can fire people for speech without violating their rights. Or for brining a gun into the workplace. Or all sorts of other stuff.

What you think the law ought to be is not the same as what the law is. Don't pretend otherwise.

[Illocust]

David do you truly believe that if the USG ordered a business to fire every employee who did not show proof they'd voted for a Democrat, that that would be constitutional?

[Sarcastr0]

Among other things, you're conflating what you don't like with what's unconstitutional.

Your hypo fails rational basis.

[David Nieporent]

Sue DaveM for giving frivolous and incompetent legal advice.

[DaveM]

Hey, does that mean I is a lawyer!? Whoot. I can haz practice now?

[David Nieporent]

Why is it against your will? In all your ranting and raving, you haven't actually given a reason why you don't want to get vaccinated. You've already disclaimed a religious argument.

(Bodily autonomy might be an argument why people shouldn't be able to force you to get vaccinated, but it isn't an argument why you don't want to choose to get vaccinated.)

It's cheap, quick, safe, painless. Is there anything other than petulance — that you want to refuse because people are criticizing you for not getting vaccinated?

[Illocust]

My reasons don't matter, David. I'm not willing, and my employer was okay with that up until the USG stepped in. That's the only thing that matters.

[David Nieporent]

Of course your reasons matter. You're the one who brought up your position, and now you're going to refuse to explain it? Should that I take it as a concession that in fact petulance is the explanation?

[Moderation4ever]

The former President has lost his arbitration case with Omarosa Manigault Newman over a breach of a NDA. Will this mean more people will be coming forth with books on the former President? There is already a number, we can expect more and this ruling will likely increase the number. We may never have a Trump Presidential Library, but most book stores and libraries will have a book case worth of books on the former President.

The ruling was interesting in that it said the former President's expectation of what was covered under the NDA was too broad. The former President like to set his own rules in the NDA and in much of his life. He maybe learning late that life doesn't work that way.

[Brett Bellmore]

In theory, you set what's covered under an NDA when you draft it, not by having "expectations".

[Moderation4ever]

I think the "In theory" part was left out by the former President.

[Bob from Ohio]

You got him now.

The walls are closing in on Trump.

[grb]

Bob's right. Trump's followers already know he's a sleazy huckster buffoon. They just don't care.

You see, he was very entertaining - owning the Libs & all.

[Voize of Reazon]

The dispute was settled by arbitration and there is no right of public access to the proceedings so we will see only the bits and pieces the participants choose to expose. Cases resolved in court like that of Jessica Denson are more likely to have consequences.

[M L]

Update on the situation with meme stocks, trading restrictions, Robinhood, Citadel, et al.

Commenters here freaked out and went ballistic over the suggestion that there may be something untoward going on.

This doesn't look good:

https://twitter.com/EpsilonTheory/status/1443266599251755008

[Illocust]

Doubt it will matter. If the guy knows the right people and greases the right palms he'll be fine.

[M L]

Unfortunately, you may be correct.

[jb]

The fact that Robinhood insiders can trade these stocks ahead of making decisions about restricting the way they can be traded seems pretty wrong. Does anyone know if this actually qualifies as insider trading, though, since it's not information about the companies per se.

[Kevin Smith]

I would think its not insider trading, since as you say its not information about the company being traded, and Robinhood customers are still able to make trades using any other broker they want

[M L]

CDC changed the definitions of "vaccines" and "vaccination" on its website earlier this month. No longer "produces immunity"

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article254111268.html

"The previous definitions could have been “interpreted to mean that vaccines were 100% effective, which has never been the case for any vaccine, so the current definition is more transparent, and also describes the ways in which vaccines can be administered,” the spokesperson said."

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't really object to the new definition, it's more accurate. The CDC is doing things that are a lot stupider than this, on a daily basis.

[M L]

Agree. The change seems to be driven in part by the fact that these recent vaccines are less effective than what is traditionally considered a vaccine. With the rise of flu vaccinations as well, there is a move away from the traditional model of immunizations that require one dose or maybe two and you're good for life, toward something that may require 1, 2, 3 doses per year? Maybe there will be a monthly subscription model in the future. Then if only they could stream it like Netflix. Long big pharma stocks?

[jb]

I think it's driven by a lot of stupid people saying "oh, if it produces immunity how is it possible that my friend Martha got Covid even though she's vaccinated?" as if the immunity was a binary proposition.

The mRNA vaccines were super effective against the original Covid strains, at least at first; the levels of protection we're seeing now is actually much more in line with what we expect from many normal vaccines. It's also possible that with the right set of boosters over time the Covid vaccines will remain very effective, but there's still a lot of research to be done to understand what that cadence should look like. (The polio vaccine, for example, requires a total of four doses as a child and they now suggest one as an adult. That doesn't mean the vaccine doesn't work, it just means the boosters are important to establishing long-term immunity.)

[Absaroka]

"these recent vaccines are less effective than what is traditionally considered a vaccine."

1)I was curious and googled 'measles vaccine effectiveness' and found a CDC page that said 97%. I did the same for TDAP (the diptheria/pertussis/tetanus combo) and got:

"Tdap VE (vaccine effectiveness - ed.) decreased with increasing time since receipt, with VEs of 75.3%...".

My sense is that we think that the measles or diphtheria vaccine is 100% effective because almost everyone gets it so that the population has herd immunity.

2)In these days of PCR testing, we might have to rethink the definition of 'is infected'. Imagine that the trajectory of some disease is:

a)the initial germ gets into the body
b)the germ has replicated and there are 10**5 of them. For 'immune' people the various components of the immune system go to work
c)there are now 10**7 of the germs, and this is the high water mark for 'immune' people.
d)for the not-immune, germ numbers hit 10**10 and symptoms start
e)...

Suppose a PCR test is positive when there are 10**6 or more germs. In days gone by, your clinical trial would have never noticed those cases; you'd just say 'they were immune and never got sick'. With PCR testing, you say 'they weren't immune and got an asymptomatic infection'. We have to be careful to make sure we're comparing apples to apples across the eras of technology.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's pretty much it. If you look at the literature on immune function, it's pretty clear about this: Immunity, however derived, does not typically prevent the pathogen from establishing a foothold. It just causes it to be beaten back much faster, ideally before you're ever symptomatic.

[Don Nico]

"the fact that these recent vaccines are less effective than what is traditionally considered a vaccine. "
Where did you get that idea from ML. It has been demonstrated to be untrue.

[Don Nico]

I also find the definition more accurate, BUT when applying the concept of "Vaccine" to public policy, CDC and the Administration fall back on the old concept of IMMUNITY against a disease. At the same time their policy denies any recognition of natural immunity despite extensive evidence supporting such immunity at a level equal to or greater than immunity due to the present covid vaccines.
"Vaccinating people who have had covid-19: why doesn’t natural
immunity count in the US?" British Medical Journal Feature,
BMJ 2021;374:n2101 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2101

[Brett Bellmore]

That was part of what I meant by "stupider than this on a daily basis".

[Don Nico]

You might also like to see
"Equivalency of Protection from Natural Immunity in COVID-19 Recovered Versus Fully Vaccinated Persons"
medRxiv preprint doi:
https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.12.21263461

[Randal]

Don't forget https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm

[Don Nico]

Don't forget that CDC is protecting its own denial of the science.

[Don Nico]

By the way, the Kentucky study is pathetically small and its data are overwhelmed my multiple far more extensive studies:
Equivalency of Protection from Natural Immunity in COVID-19 "Recovered Versus Fully Vaccinated Persons: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis," medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.12.21263461
and the comprehensive BMJ feature:
"Vaccinating people who have had covid-19: why doesn’t natural
immunity count in the US?" BMJ 2021;374:n2101
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2101

[Randal]

I already responded to your BMJ cite on another thread. Short version: it confirms what the CDC and I are saying. Yes, previous infection gives you great immunity. No one is denying that. But it's always better if you get vaccinated. And since there's essentially no reason not to get vaccinated, why would the CDC recommend otherwise?

I suspect your Systematic Review will say something similar but I'll take a look.

[Randal]

Yep I was right. Also not a study but a pretty one-sided policy paper. But even it conceded that getting vaccinated improves immunity and outcomes in all cohorts.

[Don Nico]

By one sided, you must mean that it was contrary to your opinion.
Also the degree of improvement of immunity may not justify the risk of side effects.
But you are welcome to live in a black and white world. Interestingly the EU has decided otherwise, recognizing natural immunity as substantial.

[Don Nico]

Randal,
I am surprised that you call the Systematic Review a "policy paper." I would guess that you are unfamiliar with the form and format of scientific review papers.
But here is one quote from the conclusion, "Vaccination in the COVID-recovered may provide some incremental protective benefit, but the size of this benefit is marginal."
That is what I wrote in response to your post. The marginal value must be weighed against increased risk and in consideration that the present vaccines are designed to react against an unmasked RBD on the spike protein as is only found in the wild strain and the B1.117 variant.

[Don Nico]

"But even it conceded that getting vaccinated improves immunity and outcomes in all cohorts."
You really misrepresent the the manuscript. Here is the entire conclusion; readers can judge for themselves.
"Overall, our comprehensive systematic review identified nine clinical studies of various design, of which seven could be included in a pooled analysis. From review of these studies, we conclude that there is no statistical advantage to vaccination in the COVID-naive, compared to natural immunity in the COVID-recovered. Vaccination in the COVID-recovered may provide some incremental protective benefit, but the size of this benefit is marginal. Explicitly, COVID-naïve individuals should not seek infection to bypass vaccination. However, COVID-recovered individuals should be considered to have at least equal protection to their vaccinated COVID-naïve counterparts. The COVID-recovered also represent a unique population segment with distinct risk/benefit considerations and a narrower therapeutic window. National policy should reflect the need for clinical equipoise and restraint in the decision to vaccinate these individuals by mandate."

[Randal]

There are five reasons I call it a policy paper.

1. It's not peer-reviewed.

2. It calls itself a "comprehensive review" but it seems to have had a preconceived opinion which it cherry-picks studies to support. It doesn't support its claim to be comprehensive.

3. It doesn't honestly address the limits of its findings, such as how they could change with different distributions of the variant.

4. There's a glaring hole, one the CDC mentions a lot so it should be addressed by any serious paper: the aggregate protection offered by previous infection is one thing, but you also need to know the variability of protection. If vaccines give everyone a consistent level of protection but natural immunity varies a lot by individual, then there could be a lot of people with previous infections who don't have much protection.

5. It concludes with an unsupported policy claim: "Therefore, vaccination of COVID-recovered individuals should be subject to clinical equipoise and individual preference." This isn't a scientific statement, it's a policy judgement. (I pulled that quote from the abstract. I noticed the paper itself doesn't make quite such a strong policy proclamation. Which on the one hand is good, but on the other reveals the biases of the authors.)

I think it's a decent paper, but it is what it is, and it's not an objective, scientific analysis. It also doesn't effectively rebut the CDC position.

[Don Nico]

Randel,
Do have a look. For an individual the question is whether the slight uptick in immunity is worth the risk of side effects. That decision depends on the age of the individual. The world of virology is not as black and white as "vaccine nazis" paint it.
Still when I am asked my advice, I tell people to get a vaccination.
I intend to get a booster shot as soon as it is offered. However, my son would be unwise to get it as he has had a long-term debilitating side effect from the first 2 shots.

[DaveM]

Well, some of these jabs aren't, in fact, "vaccines". They do not, in fact, produce an immune response. Which is why you can still spread it even though you've be jabbed, why you can still be sick even though you've been jabbed, and why natural (e.g., real) immunity is so much more effective. All that said, the jab apparently does a great job keeping you out of a hospital bed and a graveyard. It's not useless, but it also isn't a vaccine.

[David Nieporent]

Yeah, virtually none of that is true.

[Brett Bellmore]

I endorse that message.

[DaveM]

Such as? The Phizer jab, which I have, is not a vaccine. It just keeps me from getting sick. I can still carry a viral load. Still super useful, but not technically a vaccine.

[David Nieporent]

The Pfizer vaccine, like the Moderna vaccine, the J&J vaccine, and others around the world, are in fact vaccines. Keeping you from getting sick is what vaccines do. Yes, in all vaccines you can still carry a viral load; it's not clear that there is any true sterilizing immunity, as opposed to protective immunity. And yes, that's technically a vaccine.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm unaware of any treatment of the human body that prevents viruses from infiltrating and even multiplying, except maybe death.

[Don Nico]

DaveM,
1) The COVID vaccines are real vaccines.
2) All the COVID vaccines do produce an immune response.
3) Yes, you can still get sick. I often get influenza even though I get the annual flu shot.
4) Natural immunity is no more "real" than that induced by a vaccines
5) The level of protection provided by either natural or vaccine induced immunity are commensurate. Natural immunity may be more robust against variants of concern. But "much more effective"? No

[VinniUSMC]

"3) Yes, you can still get sick. I often get influenza even though I get the annual flu shot."

That's like saying you got rabies even though you got a tetanus shot.

[Aunt Teefah]

A graduate student teacher makes statements critical of a foreign government. Following an online backlash, a diplomat from that country, along with a member of Congress, intervene to try to get her fired. Surely the "free speech on campus" crusaders must be up in arms about this brazen act of cancel culture, right? Well apparently not, at least if the country in question is Israel:

https://theintercept.com/2021/09/28/israel-palestine-unc-academic-freedom/

"THIS AUGUST, Israeli consular officials in the southeast U.S. arranged meetings with a dean at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to discuss a graduate student teaching a course on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. According to two UNC professors with knowledge of the meetings, who asked for anonymity for fear of retribution, the Israeli official accused the Ph.D. student of antisemitism and said she was unfit to teach the course.

The intervention by an Israeli government official, Consul General to the Southeastern United States Anat Sultan-Dadon, followed a pressure campaign by right-wing pro-Israel websites and an advocacy group to remove the graduate student, Kylie Broderick, from teaching the history department course called “The Conflict over Israel/Palestine.” The websites and pro-Israel advocacy group pointed to postings Broderick had made on Twitter that criticized Israel and Zionism and, without evidence, cited the postings as evidence of antisemitism."

[Don Nico]

What goes around comes around.

[Aunt Teefah]

. . . and then goes around again. Though I suspect that your view - that cancel culture is only a problem when it's your side being cancelled - is the prevailing one. Regardless, it's usually just students trying to stifle speech on campus - foreign diplomats and US Representatives getting in on the act is pretty unprecedented.

[Don Nico]

That is not my view at all.
Don't put words in my mouth.
There is a very large difference between 1) looking to suppress the views of faculty currently being presented; that is an issue of censorship and academic freedom NOT cancel culture, and 2) looking to fire, disgrace and erase people due to actions, views, etc. that are many years in the past.

Regarding the suppression of faculty based on the content of their present courses or research, I find that highly disturbing and inconsistent with any concept of academic freedom. I have a similar opinion that all censorship is out of place in America.

[Don Nico]

By the way, if there is any complaint to be made about UNC, it is that they have any for-credit courses being taught by graduate students

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"What goes around comes around."

What's coming is the stomping of your conservative preferences into submission by your betters, Don Nico. Couldn't happen to a more deserving group of superstitious bigots and disaffected hayseeds.

The culture war isn't over but it has been settled. The good guys have won.

[Bob from Ohio]

"criticized ...Zionism and, without evidence, cited the postings as evidence of antisemitism.”

Somebody doesn't understand what "evidence" means.

Anti-Zionism is evidence of antisemitism. Synonyms really.

[Aunt Teefah]

Clownish argument. Is someone's statements hostile to the CCP evidence of anti-Chinese bigotry? Absurd. Regardless, whatever you think of anti-Zionism, why is an Israeli diplomat trying to get a grad student fired?

[Bob from Ohio]

Only people who hate Jews oppose a Jewish homeland.

Israeli officials have a duty to oppose Jew hating, whomever does it and wherever it seeps out of the slime..

[Don Nico]

And the university officials have a duty to oppose proposed restrictions on academic freedom.
They also have an obligation to have courses taught by faculty and not by grad students if they want to be considered a high quality university.

[Bob from Ohio]

"academic freedom"

An obsolete concept.

[Don Nico]

You'd better hope not.

[Bob from Ohio]

Don't care. Conservatives have already been reduced to a few zoo specimens at most colleges.

[Don Nico]

Typical of you to care only about yourself

[Aunt Teefah]

Israel has nuclear weapons, the latest and greatest in military tech, and the full backing of the US imperial war machine. It's not going anywhere. There not being a "Jewish homeland" is not an option on the table. The question is whether it is obligated to respect the human rights of its Palestinian neighbors. Arguing that it must is not "Jew hating", and more to the point, is not a legitimate reason for a foreign government and an elected official to try to get you fired.

[Bob from Ohio]

"It’s not going anywhere."

Tell that to Kylie Broderick

She believes that Israel has no right to exist.

https://voice4israel.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Broderick-all-of-Israel-is-occupied-.png

[Aunt Teefah]

1. The linked tweet does not say that. At all. That may be your bad-faith inference of what it means, but that is not what was said.

2. You want to fire people for retweeting somewhat spicy takes on foreign relations issues. Grow up.

[Bob from Ohio]

It says all of Israel is "occupied". Its not "bad faith" to say that means "no Israel". Its a call for Arab control of all of Israel. You know what that would mean, genocide.

[Commenter_XY]

If you don't understand the clear inference being made by the antisemite Broderick, maybe you have the same problem.

[Don Nico]

"Israel has nuclear weapons, the latest and greatest in military tech"
With respect to the Palestinian issue, these weapons and systems are irrelevant.

[Randal]

Sorry Bob, this isn't true at all. I'm quite fond of Jews but I think Israel was probably a mistake on the whole. Too late now, but if I could go back and change some of the decisions made in the 40s I would.

If you're telling me that my opinion means I have to hate Jews, well, that's obviously a terrible position to take.

[VinniUSMC]

"I'm not racist, but..."

[Bob from Ohio]

"I’m quite fond of Jews" aka "Some of my best friends are Jews!"

[Sarcastr0]

Christians saying they know what true Judaism must be in American politics is disgusting.

[Randal]

I was pretty sure this was how the responses were going to go, and they did. But I noticed you're not disputing my actual point, which is that it's not at all antisemitic to think that there were some bad geopolitical and human rights decisions made in the course of establishing Israel. Not that justify abandoning Israel now -- what's done is done -- but you can be anti-Zionist without being antisemitic or even anti-Israel.

[Don Nico]

"I’m quite fond of Jews but"
The usual
"Some of my best friends are Jews, but...."
We've heard it all before

[Noscitur a sociis]

While it's certainly possible to criticize the Chinese government without making a racist attack on Chinese people, it's also possible for criticism implicating the Chinese government to take the form of such a racist attack. Likewise with Israel and Jews (although innocuous, good faith criticism is, in my experience, vanishingly rare).

In this case, Ms. Broderick's comments seem to fall pretty squarely on the anti-semitic side. But even if you don't read them that way, I don't see how you can characterize providing the very statements that you're claiming are anti-semitic as making a claim "without evidence".

[Aunt Teefah]

Because opposition to Israeli policies - particularly its treatment of Palestinians - is not evidence of anti-semitism. Not even close. Two entirely separate things. When the Israeli State maintains a system of apartheid, or kills Arab protesters en masse, or acts as a tyrant toward Gaza, that is the fault of the Israeli State, not the Jews of the world. If anything, suggesting the converse by insisting that Zionism and Semitism are synonymous is far closer to actual anti-semitism than anything Ms. Broderick is reported as saying.

[Bob from Ohio]

"apartheid"

Ah, no wonder you defend Broderick, you are just like her.

I mean I already knew this but its good to have confirmation.

"Zionism and Semitism are synonymous is far closer to actual anti-semitism "

This is nonsense on stilts.

"I'm not the Nazi, Jew, you are."

[Commenter_XY]

Agree = Ah, no wonder you defend Broderick, you are just like her. I mean I already knew this but its good to have confirmation.

Always good to have that confirmation. At least you know who you're dealing with. They cannot help themselves. This one is just a somewhat politer version of Pavel. Same malevolence as Pavel, though.

[Aunt Teefah]

Yes, apartheid. The word guaranteed to trigger every unthinking cheerleader of Israeli aggression toward Palestinians. And the conclusion of the ISRAELI organization B’Tselem's recent thorough study: https://www.btselem.org/publications/fulltext/202101_this_is_apartheid

But I'm sure they're just antisemites too, right?

[grb]

I guess we could ask Bob to explain the difference between the Israeli occupation and apartheid. But we know there's no bottom to Bob beyond empty slogans and inchoate rage.

So we'll answer our own question : Very little.

Ignoring the massive & systematic discrimination against Israel's Arab population holding citizenship, there the much larger population under the Palestinian Authority. But the PA is not a government with control over its border and resources; it was never meant to be anything more than temporary and partial measure under the Oslo Accords while a final peace treaty was negotiated.

The PA is the fig leaf over an apartheid perhaps even Bob can't pretend or weasel away. According to the Jerusalem Post, the Jewish and Palestinian populations will be equal by 2022, with most of the latter having seriously curtailed rights. There's a word to describe that, if only Bob can remember what it is....

Who believes this artificial status quo shielding Israel is sustainable? Long-term, there are only three choices : (1) Israel accepts the moral stain and worldwide approbation of running an apartheid regime, (2) Israel accepts all Palestinians into its state, and stops being a Jewish majority state, (3) Two states, Israel and Palestine. Those are the only real choices.

I say No.3 is best, but all the blindness and short-sighted moral cowardice of both the Palestinian & Israeli leadership can't stop the inevitable decision.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I guess we could ask Bob to explain the difference between the Israeli occupation and apartheid."

Come on, that's such an easy one it's absurd that you don't anticipate the answer: Apartheid wasn't a response to genocidal attacks that resumed every time the South African government tried to abandon the policy.

[grb]

That's weak even for you, Brett. So the definition of apartheid - "a policy of segregation and political, social, and economic discrimination" - doesn't exist or is negated after "X" number of terrorist or resistance attacks.

So a population segregated by race and given substantially fewer political rights would have been peachy in South Africa if the prior regime could have point to a handful of attacks? And you want to list the "genocide" attacks the Israelis have endured the last two decades and explain how what you list justifies apartheid-grade policies?

Do you think you're doing Israel any favors with your bullshit? The three choices I describe are both real & inevitable. Given the stakes, I tend to believe Israel and its supporters should deal with reality, not lame talking points. The same is true of the Palestinians and its supporters. Everyone now treats the issue like some kind of kabuki theater....

[Bob from Ohio]

There are Arabs in the current government, it depends on the Islamic party to govern.

Just like South Africa!

[grb]

Geez Bob, will you even attempt to make sense ?!?

Yes, the Israeli government includes some Arab components, but (a) that doesn't change the fact that Arab citizens of Israel face massive and systematic discrimination, and (b) that's incidental to the charge of apartheid itself. The greater number of Palestinians are in a enclave controlled by the Israeli government and have political representation only thru the PA - a half-government at best, created at Oslo as a limited & temporary measure until a final peace deal.

With charity you can describe that as "not-apartheid" - but just barely and that charitable take gets harder with each passing year. Functionally it is apartheid, like the "tribal councils" of South Africa didn't negate the apartheid of that regime.

Both Israel and the Palestinians need to face inevitable hard choices in the future. The leadership of both is full of blind myopic cowards, obsessed with their local politics and the absolute shortest-term picture. The supporters of both are up to facing reality, but are obsessed with facile bullshit symbolism. It's like everyone is consciously deciding not to see the plain stark reality.

[Don Nico]

"between the Israeli occupation and apartheid"
a classic example of begging the question

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"Anti-Zionism is evidence of antisemitism. Synonyms really."

Is that what passes for knowledge in the deplorable backwaters of Ohio?

Opposing superstition-steeped government -- especially with the customary substantial helpings of misogyny, right-wing belligerence, gay-bashing, etc. -- is always good.

No wonder conservatives are uncompetitive in the modern American marketplace of ideas.

[Gandydancer]

From your link...

Sultan-Dadon said... “I think it should be of concern to anyone who stands against antisemitism, and for academic freedom, that an individual who has... publicly stated that she does not believe there are two sides to this conflict and does not want to teach her students both sides, is the selected teacher for a course on ‘The Conflict over Israel/Palestine.’”

Maybe she didn't, but the article doesn't deny that Broderick said this.

[M L]

As everyone knows health insurance premiums keep going up and the average employer-sponsored health insurance premium for a family is now north of $20,000 annually. Usually the employer pays around 70% of that, and may fully fund an annual deductible around $4,000 to an HSA as well.

The only reason health insurance is tied to employers is due to terrible tax and other government policy. Instead of shelling out that cash to group plans, employers should be able to pay it to employees who can then buy individual health insurance.

[jb]

Yes, that would make a lot of sense, but it needs to be combined with some way of doing risk pooling in the open marketplace otherwise you just end up with tons of adverse selection by insurers, consumers, or both.

[M L]

I'm basically OK with the idea that government should force people to pay for other people's health care and food and so on, when they are in need of help. That's sort of a political compromise position, pragmatically acknowledging current realities, as I believe there could be altogether better ways. ​With that said, I would probably differ greatly on how such government policy should be implemented.

I don't like the Obamacare way of shoehorning this policy
of government redistribution or welfare into "insurance" products. That's not even "insurance."

"Risk pooling" really means something different than the welfare-through-insurance wonks want it to mean. It's fundamental to what "insurance" is and you have the same issue there. Essentially, insurance is risk pooling and risk pooling is insurance.

Insurance as an economic concept only applies to a possible bad thing that might happen, i.e. a risk. If something is a certainty or if it's already happened, that's not a risk.

And the probability of the bad thing must generally be quite low, otherwise the premium would need to be very high, which may not make economic sense, and wouldn't really fit the economic model of risk pooling unless there are many parties wanting to pool very high risk events all with identical risk profiles. A high risk business proposition becomes more like a joint venture than an insurance policy.

Risk pooling doesn't actually mean that you adopt a fiction and blindly treat a bunch of wildly different risks as being the same when it comes to setting the premium price. That's just your backdoor welfare policy. Instead, the incentive of an insurer, which is beneficial economically and otherwise to society at large, is to profile risks in a discriminating fashion in order ascertain their probability and magnitude with as much certainty as reasonably possible. Then, after having done that, they set a premium which allows a reasonable expectation of profit when pooled with all of the other insured risks.

I surely don't have all the answers on the details of what a good policy would be, but I would roll back all of the welfare-through-insurance policy and basically deregulate all health insurance (the more traditional types of basic insurance regulations that have been around for many years are fine) and even more important, deregulate health care itself. All of the government-required welfare or redistribution can be set up quite separately, potentially even using HSA-type accounts. Like all such types of ideas the basic concept is something like to each according to his need, from each according to his ability. But if we're going to do that it could be a lot more efficient.

[apedad]

"Insurance as an economic concept only applies to a possible bad thing that might happen, i.e. a risk. If something is a certainty or if it’s already happened, that’s not a risk.

On an individual level I suppose that's true.

However, on a society level, we know there are going to be accidents and illnesses.

[M L]

Sure. If you were an insurer, you would happily insure 10 million people with identical risk profiles all for the same price, knowing full well that a certain % will get cancer, be in car accidents, etc.

But if John Q. approaches you to purchase a one-year insurance policy for $1, and a crystal ball somehow reveals that he will have $100 in covered losses that year, then do you insure? Of course not.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

More problems that will be solved by universal health care in America.

I hope the program is formally entitled Obamacare.

[M L]

Meaning nationalized, government health care, around 18% of GDP. Which as I pointed out the other day, is the communist solution or perspective on the issue. That caused some folks to become very defensive, but they shouldn't be. Just own it. Whatever it is, it's the opposite of libertarian.

[jb]

It's only 18% of the GDP because the US system is so inefficient. The fact that we manage to spend 50-100% more than peer countries for worse health outcomes isn't exactly a good argument in defense of the status quo.

[M L]

I'm not in favor of the status quo by any stretch. I'm even less in favor of nationalizing the industry.

We don't have "worse outcomes" from our health care. Health care in the US is actually top notch and gold plated, it's just absurdly expensive and inefficient and socialized. To the extent we have "bad outcomes" (relative, of course, to what you're defining as "good") it's associated with our aging population, lifestyle choices, obesity, unhealthy diets, lack of exercise, and diversely unique genetic makeup that can't be directly compared to other countries without many controls and qualifications.

I agree that in part 18% of GDP is because of significant inefficiency, but it's also in large part because of supply and demand reflecting consumer choice to allocate a lot of resources to health care.

[Aunt Teefah]

"Just own it."

Gladly.

"Whatever it is, it’s the opposite of libertarian."

Yeah, that's kinda the point.

Treating healthcare as a market commodity has been an unmitigated disaster in terms of cost and health outcomes. Pretty much every other industrialized nation has figured out a better way. How about we do what's proven to work?

[Don Nico]

"Pretty much every other industrialized nation has figured out a better way. "
A nice slogan as long as you are not too sick. So for basically healthy folks under 50 the British NHS is pretty good.
If you are very sick the US system comes out ahead IF you have the appropriate insurance. It is said that the US spends too much on the elderly and critically ill. Maybe so. That is the choice my fellow citizens have made.

[jb]

The US does not have better health outcomes generally than its peers.

The reason we spend more on health care is not Medicare, which is actually pretty efficient, it's high costs throughout the system. Just look at MRI or drug prices in the US vs other countries.

[M L]

*mumbles some advanced level Marxist gobbledy-gook*

[Brett Bellmore]

The welfare through insurance scam was chosen because they wanted to create a new entitlement program, but didn't want it to be on budget. So they got the bright idea of forcing insurance companies to run it for them, off the government's books.

But now that it's in place, you get the same dynamic that makes other entitlement programs immortal kicking in: The costs are diffuse, the benefits concentrated, so the people getting the entitlement are VERY motivated to be politically active.

Very difficult to get rid of this distortion of the insurance market now. It would almost be easier to create an alternative free market funding mechanism that the ACA doesn't apply to, (Maybe a huge expansion of "medishare" programs.) and then let the old health insurance industry die, and the ACA with it.

[jb]

"The welfare through insurance scam was chosen because they wanted to create a new entitlement program, but didn’t want it to be on budget. So they got the bright idea of forcing insurance companies to run it for them, off the government’s books."

Nope. They did it that way because they thought that since Republicans had been proposing similar schemes for decades that some of them would sign on (wrong!) and because they thought it would get the insurance companies on board to help lobby for it (correct!)

[Gandydancer]

I don't know why you say, "Nope." Nothing you write contradicts what Bellmore wrote.

[jb]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I think it pretty obviously contradicts the paragraph I quoted.

[jb]

I think as compared to the status quo, we'd be better off with a model where the government provided catastrophic health insurance, we got rid of the tax incentives for employer-provided health care and then maybe also subsidized preventative care somehow, but left the rest to people to shop around on their own. I don't think that's a great system since it encourages people to put off routine care, but you'd make sure everyone could get care when they REALLY needed it and probably cut a decent amount of expense out of the system.

But to give you the clearest example of why any normal insurance model doesn't work, just take a look at genetic testing. Let's say you have a gene that gives you a strong propensity towards some sort of rare but expensive disease. If an insurance company knows this, they are probably either not going to insure you or charge you a ridiculous amount to do so. In fact, from the day you're born you might find it impossible to buy reasonably priced insurance. It doesn't seem like a good feature of our society to say "if you are prone to some expensive disease, sorry you just can't have health care" or I guess "better hope you're born rich". So an easy way to fix this is to just ban insurance companies from doing this sort of genetic testing. But wait: the consumer can still get tested themselves and figure out their risk profile and choose to get low deductibles and high lifetime limits if they know this is coming. So do we ban people from knowing their own genetic makeup? I haven't heard anyone articulate a solution to these sorts of problems other than just having very large risk pools.

FWIW, every other country in the world manages to figure this out. They do it in lots of different ways--some with the government running the whole health care system, some primarily through private insurance schemes, and some almost completely on a pay-for-treatment basis, but they all have two characteristics that we seem unwilling to go for in the US: some sort of health coverage is universal/mandatory (this is your large risk pool), and the government sets prices.

[Randal]

You are of course correct M L.

But if you keep going, you'll get to where all the low-risk people have cheap private insurance, and all the high-risk people balk at the high cost of premiums and opt to take advantage of the "government-required welfare" you're talking about. Meaning taxes go way up.

So then you have low-risk people paying a lot of taxes and an insurance premium, and high-risk people just paying taxes. That's pretty perverse, so probably the low-risk people realize that they don't really need to buy insurance either.

Voila, single payer.

[M L]

Except, more command and control of the health care industry by Washington D.C. will only greatly exacerbate existing problems and inefficiencies. Or, it will greatly reduce the quality and levels of care. And eventually, with absolute certainty, it will do both.

One way the market may respond to the problems you are talking about, which responses might be helped along by government, is to purchase longer term contracts for insurance. Maybe a 10 or 20 year term as in life insurance. Another way is that more people might eat healthier and exercise if they don't want to be "high-risk" or if they don't care about dying earlier and having to pay more then that's their choice. The low risk people will always realize they should buy health insurance, if the cost is commensurate to the benefit. So keep it that way- or rather, undo what we've done and make it that way again. The taxes, they don't have a choice about paying, so there's no adverse selection problem. Or, they only have a choice through the political process, which is the only legitimate way to decide the issue anyway.

[M L]

On Sept. 4 a violent angry white man opened fire on a crowd of peaceful protestors, shooting and injuring one person of color.

For some reason, I'm not quite sure why, the media isn't making this as big a story as the white Charlottesville guy who hit people with his car.

https://nypost.com/2021/09/27/antifa-member-benjamin-varela-charged-with-shooting-protester/

An Antifa member with a long history of posting far-left extremist content online has been arrested and charged with the shooting of an anti-vaxxer in Olympia, Wash.

[M L]

Any liberals here who can solve this puzzle?

[Gandydancer]

Who, whom.

Ashli Babbitt was murdered. On video. Clear as day. Full stop. Had she been black and the riot AntiFa's we know that it wouldn't be the way it is.

Who, whom.

You're not surprised, and neither am I.

[Randal]

How are you deciding how _big_ the story is? I saw both getting reported, and they seemed similar in size.

[Gandydancer]

I saw both getting reported, and they seemed similar in size.

This is arrant lunacy. Benjamin Varela will never, ever, in a million years, get the same number of hits as James Fields III has right now. Pick your own metric. It's not only not close, it's not in the same universe.

[Gandydancer]

...to be fair, a better comparison to Varela than Fields is Michael Reinoehl, whose deed isn't in the same universe as an attention-getter as Fields', either. But, I repeat, what you wrote is flat out nuts.

[Randal]

Hits is your metric? I think you answered your own question when you mentioned "attention-getter." Some stories get a lot of attention and some get less. As long as the media isn't trying to bury a story -- which doesn't seem to be what you're claiming -- then really it's the audience that determines which stories are attention-getting and which aren't.

[Sarcastr0]

The guy in Charlottesville killed a girl, right?

That could be your difference right there.

[LSchnapf]

IMPLIED FEDERAL PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION- looking for some good authority. I've done a good deal of research but was wondering if anyone had a recommended article or resource.

Larry Schnapf

[Bored Lawyer]

I think that used to be popular among the judiciary, but has now waned. A classic example is securities fraud, which a court made up as a private cause of action, and then Congress assumed it to be the case, so it survived. Nowadays, courts are reluctant to go there.

[apedad]

Man, you have got to be some low-life when Trump, Gov. Noem (SD), and One America News Network (OANN) drop you.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/kristi-noem-cuts-ties-with-corey-lewandowski-after-two-bombshell-reports

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How do we know Lewandowski didn't dump Noem first?

[bernard11]

The incredible thing is that Kristi Noem, the Covid Queen, is apparently considering a run for the WH, and some people thought it was a good idea.

[Gandydancer]

The first two are a #MeToo thing (well, it seems somehow an allegation that CL was boning Noem also emerged, which somehow didn't discredit Believe The Victim, eh?) while the OANN bit is a contractual dispute from 2017. Noem is squishy on boys playing sports against girls and Trump is squishy on practically everything, so pushback wasn't to be expected from anyone in either's entourage. But I'm not seeing any credible allegations against Lewandowski, who is of course most famous for being bogusly charged with assault for blocking a Breitbart reporter's ambush of a departing Trump in 2016.

[mydisplayname]

The "Let Them Eat Mandate" movement [for lack of a better term] has gained enough ground to catch the attention of both the Washington Post and New York Times: legacy media now contains numerous reports of essential workers -- nurses, police officers, logistics personnel, food supply chain laborers -- denying services in protest of vaccination mandates.

Although 55% of the US population has now had at least one dose of some sort of CoViD vaccine, county-by-county data continues to indicate that the majority in each countable US jurisdiction remains skeptical. Interestingly, areas with above-average vaccination rates have case rates which are no better or worse than those with below-average vaccination rates. Moreover, there is no indication that mandates actually increase vaccination rates in any jurisdiction.

The recently-announced Merck red pill shows promise. https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2020/may/18/why-is-elon-musk-telling-us-to-take-the-red-pill

[mydisplayname]

Woops, wrong link. Should have been https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/merck-says-research-shows-its-covid-19-pill-works-against-variants-2021-09-29/

[Gandydancer]

So, molnupiravir is just a vaporpill, not anything anyone can get anywhere?

[David Nieporent]

The “Let Them Eat Mandate” movement [for lack of a better term] has gained enough ground to catch the attention of both the Washington Post and New York Times: legacy media now contains numerous reports of essential workers — nurses, police officers, logistics personnel, food supply chain laborers — denying services in protest of vaccination mandates.

As David From has pointed out repeatedly with only mild hyperbole, the number of news stories about people refusing vaccination in the face of employer mandates exceeds the number of people refusing vaccination in the face of employer mandates. These "numerous reports" you cite often seem to forget to mention (or at least bury) the denominators; we'll hear about 100 hospital employees refusing in a hospital system with 30,000 employees.

[Ben_]

Yeah, the news media lies and hypes and exaggerates. Cool of you to finally notice.

[Bob from Ohio]

He's citing David From [sic] too!

[David Nieporent]

Apparently autocorrect is antisemitic and doesn't recognize "frum" as a word. (I have now added it to the dictionary so it won't happen again.)

[David Nieporent]

That is, my computer's spellcheck dictionary — not like I control Merriam-Webster.

[benji]

Well, this is disappointing news.

[David Nieporent]

I know, right?

[bernard11]

Or maybe your computer caught him enjoying a breakfast of bacon and eggs, and got all huffy about it.

[bernard11]

Although 55% of the US population has now had at least one dose of some sort of CoViD vaccine, county-by-county data continues to indicate that the majority in each countable US jurisdiction remains skeptical.

I don't believe you. Unless you are claiming that the majority in East Jackass County (pop. 200) and West Jackass county (pop. 210) are skeptical, while the majority in Los Angeles County (pop. 10 million) aren't, so that's 2-1. If that's the claim it might be true, but is idiotic nonetheless.

Interestingly, areas with above-average vaccination rates have case rates which are no better or worse than those with below-average vaccination rates.

This is false. The states with the highest rates of positive tests - all the states with greater than 15% positive over the last 30 days - are AL, ID, MS, MT, OK, SD, and TN. They all have low vaccination rates.

[DaveM]

Two things the jab mandaters will not explain to you:

1. Why don't you count people who have natural immunity as being at least as protected as those who get the jab?

2. If the jab protects so well, how can the unjabbed be dangerous to anyone but themselves? (Collorary: if the jab doesn't protect so well, why would you insist everyone get it?)

[M L]

1. Because it's about social conformity and control (and pharma $).

2. Because it's about social conformity and control (and pharma $).

[Ben_]

Because it’s about distracting you from

- the ongoing debacle with Americans trapped in Afghanistan
- the ongoing debacle of Biden’s border crisis
- the extremely poor leadership on Covid
- Biden’s mental decline
- escalating inflation and gas prices
- congress's inability to get a budget passed

Pointing fingers at Americans who are unvaccinated and intentionally causing division among Americans and hardship to people who are not like them is a good distraction. It has been part of the Dem's playbook for a long time.

[LawTalkingGuy]

No dingus, it’s because they’re a danger to themselves and others and are spreading a disease, getting sick, clogging up ICUs. Not everything is a political game. There’s a disease that selfish people won’t take personal responsibility to mitigate against and the time for indulging them has passed.

[Ben_]

Since cases are trending down now as we approach herd immunity, the urgency to use the issue as a distraction right now is heightened. A month from now it will be much harder to pretend any drastic actions are needed.

If Dems thought Covid was actually serious, they'd obey their own mask rules. And they'd test the thousands upon thousands of illegals they're letting in. But they do neither of these.

[Don Nico]

"as we approach herd immunity"
Ben,
You do realize that a significant number of virologists think that there will be no herd immunity as SARS-CoV-2 mutates into an endemic form.

[Ben_]

You guys really seems to like Covid. Every time anyone suggests things might get better, you’re right there with hopes for a new mutation or new variant to come to your rescue.

[Sarcastr0]

A clear-eyed view of the facts does not mean you are a fan of those facts.

Don and I may disagree - sometimes even on the facts! But I am sure he knows the difference between 'is' and 'ought,' a test you have failed yet again.

[Don Nico]

Thanks, S_0.
No one "likes" COVID. Not even those of us who have been working professionally on that topic.
You really should expand the world of things that you read about this virus. You'll find that while not universally held, the idea that the virus will mutate and become endemic is now pretty widely held. In that case, the concept of herd immunity will be meaningless

[Ben_]

Predictions of the future are not "facts".

I know you guys have trouble understanding the difference because you're so emotionally and personally (and often financially) invested in your stories about the future. But future events you're hoping for or hoping against didn't happen and aren't, in any way, factual.

[DaveM]

How can they be a danger to the jabbed? That's the question you ought to be able to answer. Just saying they "are a danger to themselves and others" is inadequate. A danger how, exactly? By what mechanism?

[bernard11]

If the jab protects so well, how can the unjabbed be dangerous to anyone but themselves?

Because even those vaccinated can be infected.
Because some can't be vaccinated.
Because hospitals are overcrowded with the sick unjabbed, preventing others from being treated.

Is that enough, you sanctimonious fool?

(Collorary: if the jab doesn’t protect so well, why would you insist everyone get it?)

Because it protects pretty well. Do you not understand probabilities, etc.?

(Collorary: if the jab doesn’t protect so well, why would you insist everyone get it?)

[Ben_]

^ Elites have made their proclamations, DaveM. Your role is unquestioning obedience. Best not forget that, DaveM.

[David Nieporent]

Newsflash: expertise matters.

[Gandydancer]

Newsflash: Not all experts agree with your COVID Panic.

[apedad]

Newsflash: Not all conspiracy nuts agree with your COVID Panic.

FTFY since your definition of "expert" is obviously wacked.

[Gandydancer]

The only thing obvious is that you are a thoroughly determined ignoramus with your head up your butt.

[apedad]

Aaaah....another "expert" opinion.

[Gandydancer]

Experts disagree about COVID. This isn't even controversial. Your assertion to the contrary proves what I said with no need to consult any experts.

[Don Nico]

G,
No medical experts disagree that SARS-CoV-2 remains a dangerous virus, the evolution of which is complex, chaotic and cannot be predicted. It presents a grave challenge to public health and to the social order which is certainly disturbed by the political cold war between the lepers and the sheep.
The world of public health is not black and white despite what the political masters tell their followers.

[Don Nico]

Ben,
Obedience would not matter if good sense predominated.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Don Nico, here is William James, in 1904, with a remark about that:

Reason assumes to settle things by weighing them against one another without prejudice, partiality, or excitement; but what affairs in the concrete are settled by is and always will be just prejudices, partialities, cupidities, and excitements. Appealing to reason as we do, we are in a sort of a forlorn hope situation, like a small sand-bank in the midst of a hungry sea ready to wash it out of existence. But sand-banks grow when the conditions favor; and weak as reason is, it has the unique advantage over its antagonists that its activity never lets up and that it presses always in one direction, while men's prejudices vary, their passions ebb and flow, and their excitements are intermittent. Our sand-bank, I absolutely believe, is bound to grow, -- bit by bit it will get dyked and breakwatered.

He goes on to say, more-or-less, that he is a hesitant and extremely cautious optimist.

[Don Nico]

William James was an interesting writer and spiritualist.
I find that he sells reason short in that quote, but he is accurate that even the rationalist has a large degree of "prejudices, partialities, cupidities, and excitements" in their prudential decisions

[grb]

A quote from above, taken from Science News, 31Aug21:

“One of those charts shows that from January 24 to July 24, vaccinated individuals were hospitalized with COVID-19 at a much lower cumulative rate than unvaccinated individuals. And the difference in rates between the two groups has only grown over time. By late July, a total of about 26 adults per 100,000 vaccinated people had been hospitalized for COVID-19. That’s compared with about 431 hospitalized people for every 100,000 unvaccinated individuals — a rate roughly 17 times as high as for those who were vaccinated. The data come from 13 states, including California, Georgia and Utah.”

Why are Right-types so damn stupid?

[Don Nico]

grb,
You actually did not answer DaveM's questions with your quote.
All you did is justify your insult>

[Don Nico]

DaveM,

1) One should could reported cases along with vaccinated if you want an idea of the immunity level in the state.
2) Regardless of how you has immunity, you are still endangered if people with very high viral titres are in close proximity for 15 minutes or more. It is more likely (but as far as I know unproven) that there are more of these "superspreaders among the non-immune than among those with immunity of either type. Therefore the "unjabbed" can be dangerous to the immunized as well as the unimmunized

[Randal]

1. Natural immunity isn't as good as the vaccines.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm

2. Vaccine programs aren't about protecting individuals, they're about slowing the spread of the disease. Imagine if the vaccine were 0% effective at keeping the person from getting covid but 50% effective at keeping them from giving it to someone else. Even though it does no good to the person receiving it, we'd still want people to get vaccinated in that case.

For all your flag-waving and virtue-signalling, you right-wingers seem to have a really hard time understanding civic duty. It's all me me me, what does the vaccine do for me. The point of the vaccine is that if we all get it, covid will have a hard time spreading and die off. It's not about protecting you personally.

[Don Nico]

1) You quote the same very limited study in Kentucky that disregards several larger studies and more extensive research. But thanks for the cherry-picking.

2) This is a loser of an argument. While you deny that some people have rational reasons fro deciding against vaccination, you lump them all together into a band of lepers that you damn.

3) When people have a medical intervention, they ask "what will it do for me?" It is amazing that you can be surprised at that

[Randal]

I think if everyone got vaccinated who didn't have a good reason not to, it would be enough. I'll even add in previously infected people, even though it's not a good reason, they don't have to get vaccinated either in this hypothetical. If that all happened, the pandemic would be over.

Not good reasons:

1. I'm butt-hurt about being told what to do
2. Someone told me that the vaccines have abortions in them
3. I'm young and healthy
4. I'm afraid of the side effects (with no medical reason for special concern)
5. I'm taking a wait-and-see approach
6. It's all a hoax
7. I'll just take hydroxychloroquine / bleach / ivermectin / iodine if I get it
8. It's not that bad, just like the flu and I usually don't get a flu shot
9. It'll be treatable by the time I get it, like with monoclonal antibodies or whatever
10. I don't go out much and I wear a mask when I do

Those are the lepers.

[Don Nico]

" If that all happened, the pandemic would be over."
That is your unfalsifiable proclamation. It has nothing to do with virology or immunology. It has a lot to do with parroting your political masters.

Having said that I agree with your list of not good reasons taking partial exception to #4.

[Randal]

I don't think I'm saying quite the same thing as the politicians. My theory from the beginning, which so far has been supported by what's happened although not proven, is that once enough people (95% maybe?) have been exposed, either through infection or vaccine, the pandemic will fade into an endemic not unlike a common cold. I don't think it's a political theory, and I do think it's at least somewhat informed by virology and epidemiology.

[Don Nico]

Randal,
Fading into a benign form is a theory and that need not happen. It could happen but that could take several years. No one knows. I don't think that there is any consensus among viroligists as to the time scale of evolution.
But right now even among immune populations the virus still propagates and still causes disease. That is not herd immunity. It is a slowing down of contagion.
I will repeat even though some commenters like to ignore it, that I do recommend people getting vaccinates and the more the better.
However public health opinion globally is far from unanamous about this latter point. "The UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) has not recommended that all young people aged 12-15 are given the covid-19 vaccination. "
BMJ 2021; 374 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2180 (Published 03 September 2021) Cite this as: BMJ 2021;374:n2180.
You can also read responses to that decision.
Thanks for the polite response

[Don Nico]

Randal,
You might look at the Nature news article from this past March for a discussion of herd immunity for covid. The basics argument is that herd immunity will only be possible if we have a "transmission blocking vaccine." That we do not have.
"Nature 591, 520-522 (2021) doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-00728-2

I can't say more than that from my own research but the article sounds reasonable. It also says nothing to discourage people from being vaccinated.

[Randal]

I've never said herd immunity. I agree at this point it's an unlikely outcome.

I did say "the pandemic will be over," and what I mean by that is contagion will slow and mortality and hospitalization rates will drop to levels where mitigations like masking, social distancing, and proof of vaccination are no longer necessary in almost any context. Levels much lower than flu for example.

[M L]

What Happened in 1971? Edward Snowden and Jack Dorsey Want to Know

Something huge happened in 1971. And both Edward Snowden and Jack Dorsey are asking the same question.

In mid August, Twitter Founder and CEO Jack Dorsey tweeted a strange hashtag: #WTFHappenedin1971.

A few weeks later, Edward Snowden, the CIA subcontractor turned whistleblower who revealed the NSA’s unlawful mass surveillance program, shared a similar post.

It’s unclear if Dorsey and Snowden have similar ideological views, but it’s clear both men are seeking answers to the same question (or prompting others to look themselves): what in the world happened in 1971?

WTF Happened in 1971?
For those who aren’t aware, there is an entire website dedicated to that question: wtfhappenedin1971.com/.

The first thing that becomes apparent is that something happened in 1971. This fact is made clear by a series of charts, all based on government data, that show various odd economic trends began in that year.

Income inequality, for example, began to get much worse.

Wages, which had tracked closely with productivity and GDP growth for decades, began to lag productivity and economic growth (badly).

Inflation soared, growing at a faster rate than at any period in the previous century.

The income gap between black and white Americans, which had been closing rapidly since 1950, all but stopped closing.

These are just a few of the economic graphs one will find on wtfhappenedin1971.com. So the question remains: what the heck happened?

https://fee.org/articles/what-happened-in-1971-edward-snowden-and-jack-dorsey-want-to-know/

[bernard11]

There's been an enormous amount of economic literature about the US economy in the 1970's.

Maybe Dorsey and Snowden should start by reading some of it, instead of branching out on their own.

[apedad]

Is this a serious question?

Nixon removed us from the gold standard.

[Sarcastr0]

Turns out there's a wikipedia entry about this.

Methinks ML fell for a conspiracy-spinning article disguised as just asking questions.

Probably ends with auditing the Fed or some such rot.

[bernard11]

On a non-political matter, can we agree on the following:

1. Customer support is terrible and getting worse.
2. Whoever invented the chat business should be drawn and quartered.
3. The most frequently told lie in history is either:

"Your call is important to us," or

"We are experiencing unusually high call volume."

[Commenter_XY]

bernard11, your post made me laugh. I definitely agree. Especially #2.

[bernard11]

Thanks, xy.

As you may have guessed, I've spent a good bit of the last few days in tech support hell.

[Commenter_XY]

Heh, heh...some of my friends have been in 'FinTech customer service support hell' lately. I get it.

Hope it works out for you.

[Don Nico]

Amen, amen I say to you, "Bravo, bernard."

[Brett Bellmore]

If I ever hear a message while on hold stating, "Your call may be recorded so that we can cover our asses later." I'll probably tip the company just in appreciation of the honesty.

[bernard11]

Really, the most annoying one to me is "unusually high call volume."

I want to say, "Look, MF, I used to be in that business. I know (or used to know) how to calculate staffing needed for a specified service level given expected call volume. And I know that call volumes are highly predictable. There's no way 'unexpected' volume can produce 20-30 minute hold times unless your service standards really stink to begin with. Further, there's no way you have unexpected volume more than once or twice a year. So STFU."

[Sarcastr0]

Maybe it's just that I'm in a different generation, but this doesn't bother me. I'll just put you on speakerphone and do video games or some other slackery activity while I wait for the phone.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

The worst is when the system requires you to enter a bunch of data like account numbers and birthdates, and then when you finally talk to a human she has none of that info and requests it all again.

[Stephen Lathrop]

My favorite is the enterprising administrator with a voice mail recorder. You call, and she is trying to do her entire job with recorded messages. You listen as all the possible reasons she can think of for why you might call reel by. Four minutes, five minutes—who knows how many minutes, because at some point you hang up.

[not guilty]

The Attorney General of Texas has filed the state´s brief in opposition to a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the ¨heartbeat¨ abortion statutes in United States v. Texas. https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/gov.uscourts.txwd_.1146510.43.0.pdf The hearing is tomorrow in the district court is tomorrow.

The absence from this blog of any discussion of the merits of that lawsuit is remarkable, if not surprising.

The Attorney General takes the astounding position that SB8 is not a ban on pre-viability abortions prohibited by Planned Parenthood v. Casey. That is rank intellectual dishonesty. How is that not sanctionable?

[bernard11]

Forget it, ng. It's Texas.

[benji]

I think there might be more commentary on it if one of the Conspirators was actually based in Texas. Say, Houston.

[Gandydancer]

The Attorney General takes the astounding position that SB8 is not a ban on pre-viability abortions prohibited by Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Indeed he does, noting that TX State courts are explicitly empowered to accept legality of an abortion under Casey as a defense from the claim, so long as Casey remains good law. Ergo, such abortions are not currently banned. Should Casey be overruled then TX courts can immediately proceed to award damages. There is no prohibition on the TX Legislature making provision for such an eventuality that I am aware of. Can you point to one?

[David Nieporent]

The problem is that the statute provides for retroactive liability in that case.

[Gandydancer]

Overturning Casey means that the abortion was in fact not Constitutionally protected when performed. When SCOTUS overturns its own precedents it doesn't grandfather in the losing party on the grounds of reliance, that I've noticed.

And I bet I can't rely on that "only".

[Stephen Lathrop]

Today's NYT reports a big academic freedom dust-up at Yale, over the University's elite Grand Strategy program. Looks like big right-wing donors demanded to dictate curriculum, and the University caved. The program's faculty chair has resigned in protest.

[Don Nico]

why didn't you post the link?

[Charlie Coates]

What? there is no free speech in here.
civil engineering dissertation help

[apedad]

Ex-Nazi concentration camp secretary, 96, caught after fleeing before trial

Not sure a trial is the appropriate venue at this point.

The article notes the secretary was, ". . . a witness in trials linked to Stutthof, including that of her former boss Hoppe and other SS leaders at the camp, on three occasions from 1954 to 1982. On each occasion she said she knew nothing about the murders that took place there and had no contact with prisoners."

Perhaps if she were giving limited immunity and provided a comprehensive written statement, then we would have a better historical record.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/30/former-nazi-concentration-camp-secretary-96-faces-trial

[Bob from Ohio]

Allies turned over all Nazi war criminals [except the big shots in Spandau] to West Germany in 1953/1954. By 1956, almost all had been released.

They did try some more in the 1960s but very few convictions and most sentences less than 2 years.

Now they are trying [in juvenile court!] some random old lady who was a secretary at 18.

Worthless performative virtue signaling prosecution.

[apedad]

Alex Jones Lost Two More Sandy Hook Lawsuits

It's ok to be nuts but it's NOT ok to be nuts in court, e.g. Kraken, PillowGuy, Alex Jones.

Where do these nuts get their money to sustain their madness?!?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/alex-jones-lost-two-more-sandy-hook-lawsuits/ar-AAP1aPL?ocid=msedgntp

[apedad]

Oath Keepers Panicked That the Left Would ‘Decapitate’ Them After Failed Capitol Putsch

Rhodes included the text of that letter in an email blast to Oath Keepers titled “OATH KEEPERS WARNING ORDER PART I.” In it, Rhodes warned followers of the “very high possibility” that the Biden administration would supposedly take out the power grid and begin carrying out targeted strikes on conservatives.

“Within the short term, we face a very high possibilty [sic] of an intentional ‘comms down’ scenario where black hats take down/shut down all communications in the US - No cell service, no internet, no land lines. A comms blackout. This could also include a take down of electrical power. An intentional power blackout. Worst case scenario would be an EMP [electromagnetic pulse] strike,” Rhodes told Oath Keepers on Jan. 13. “The purpose of such a comms down/blackout will be to minimize our ability to communicate and to pin people in their homes as the black hats and their terrorist allies conduct a ‘night of the long knives’ decapitation strike to arrest or otherwise take out patriot leaders, potential leaders, and highly skilled personnel.”

You'd think Oath Keepers would be cool under pressure.

Maaayyyyyybe you nut jobs shouldn't be following them.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/oath-keepers-panicked-that-the-left-would-decapitate-them-after-failed-capitol-putsch

[M L]

Over 3,000 Doctors and Scientists Sign Declaration Accusing COVID Policy-Makers of ‘Crimes Against Humanity’

A“Physicians’ Declaration” produced by an international alliance of physicians and medical scientists strongly condemns the global strategy to treat COVID, accusing policy-makers of potential “crimes against humanity” for preventing physicians from providing life-saving treatments for their patients and suppressing open scientific discussion.

The document states that “one size fits all” treatment recommendations have resulted in needless illness and death.

https://amgreatness.com/2021/09/24/over-3000-doctors-and-scientists-sign-declaration-accusing-covid-policy-makers-of-crimes-against-humanity/

[M L]

As of 10:30am ET on Sept. 29, over 7,200 doctors and scientists had signed the Rome Declaration.

[Randal]

It seems pretty tame, other than the sort of throwaway and unnecessary (but attention-getting) "crimes against humanity" line.

No one likes to feel like politics (whether corporate, governmental, or grassroots) are getting in their way, and there certainly are a lot of politics in the medical world at the best of times. I'm sure it's unbelievably frustrating in a pandemic.