Where is the mandate?

Nope. This is your post. Again, in full and unedited.

You clearly state 99% who CATCH Covid are unvaccinated. You clearly state 534 cases and claim all are unvaccinated. No Colorado county has 534 hospitalized Covid patients. Sorry. It’s not me who is being dishonest. Nothing about your post that I am quoting back to you in full and unedited is true.

Like I said. It’s your post and it’s all false. Of course you could document a Colorado county with 534 Covid patients of which 99% are unvaccinated. But you won’t because it isn’t factual so there is no such evidence.

You keep accusing others of dishonesty when it’s your posts that are verifiably false. You are welcome to provide counter evidence to support your claims I’ve quoted back to you.

 

You are still wrong.

This post of yours is really no more than "you're wrong, too" - trying to create an excuse for your failure to understand the point being made.

The fact of the matter is that the person to whom you responded has a VERY clear issue that is supported by science based medicine today.

 

LOL. Do you want to support the claim 99% of cases are in the unvaccinated ANYWHERE? Be my guest. I posted evidence to the contrary—actual data. Here it is again so you can deny science again.

Read post #219 in this thread. I completely debunk the claims of @gnoib with evidence presented to me supposedly confirming his FALSE claims. Here is the link.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?posts/1073018920/

Go ahead and read the comments by @CenterField as well if you think I’m incorrect.

Now, as always you are welcome to support with evidence the demonstrably FALSE claim 99% of cases are in unvaccinated ANYWHERE. The person I’m communicating with made untrue statements.

 

Then do some thinking, cite a legitimate science site, and recognize that the statement made could well have been an incomplete explanation in a PF post.

 

I have presented evidence. I linked to it. Read it. Read the whole exchange. The statement I responded to is false. There has been no evidence presented to support it. I’ve presented solid evidence it’s impossible for there to be 99% of cases in the unvaccinated. It’s @gnoib job to substantiate his claim actually. That’s how these things work. I’m the ONLY one who has presented evidence to back my post.

This isn’t the first time I’ve debunked claims like this.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?posts/1072991311/

Anyone claiming 99% of cases or hospitalizations are unvaccinated is either presenting disinformation or misinformation. Because the data all points to the ratio being more like 68-75% unvaccinated, not 99%. But go ahead and parrot mis/disinformation. It’s what y’all live for. Just remember, the EVIDENCE is all on my side.

 

The problem is you guys read some news story making bogus claims and believe it without doing ANY research. You could be correct more often if you didn’t just appeal to authority and actually thought critically and did a little research.

The reason people can’t present evidence to refute my posts is because I don’t post news stories or things I hear someone else in public or on the internet say. I think about a story or something I hear for some time and if it’s interesting enough to post about I fill in any knowledge gaps I have BEFORE posting. But really, the key is to actually THINK about things. Not just read a news story or repeat what someone you think is cool or an expert posts or writes. On Covid specifically, if you actually dig into the evidence, over half of what people (from PF members to public health officials) say is demonstrably false. When you realize you can’t trust ANYONE to give you correct information you begin to fact check EVERYTHING. It is very enlightening. What most believe is reality is far from it.

Why does all this matter to me? Because the only thing more dangerous than authoritarians is authoritarians who don’t know what they are talking about. I’m weary of authoritarian people who are severely lacking in knowledge and integrity claiming to be fighting mis/disinformation WITH mis/disinformation of their own.

 

@CenterField, I’ve done a little reading up on the latest concerning vaccine efficacy over time and transmission rates amongst the vaccinated.

First, there is a pre print on actual transmission out of the UK. Here’s Nature’s take on it.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y

Here is a published study in NEJM from Qatar on longevity of efficacy. Qatar has much more comprehensive testing of asymptomatics than we do so their breakthrough rates are much different.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2114114

And

If we take these studies at face value (until there is more data we can’t really, but as we see below real world observation fits), 3-5 months after second dose, difference in transmission rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated are not significant enough to sneeze at, especially when you consider protection from asymptomatic (and all other) infection falls to 20% by month 5.

The situation in Vermont bears this out. They are the #1 state for vaccination rate at over 70%, yet are seeing the highest infection rates they have had at any time during the pandemic. Many citizens of Vermont would be well past month 5 and be transmitting at nearly the same rate as the unvaccinated because only 20% of total (symptomatic and asymptomatic) infections may actually be prevented—not the big numbers like 99% being bandied about based on (very incomplete) US data.

To be honest I’ve always expected a call for boosters and annual vaccination regardless of long term efficacy. But when I dig into the data it looks like boosters are a Hail Mary last ditch attempt at getting meaningful pandemic mitigation out of vaccination alone. Do you know of any data on how long high neutralizing antibody titers last after a third shot?

 

When I posted a general warning to a poster at the beginning of the year that people should not assume that they were "immune" just because they had the vaccine or recovered from the virus you attacked my post with walls of text about sterilisation immunity even though there was no conclusive evidence for it. Some posters "liked" your advice which gave them tacit approval to not wear a mask and carry on life as normal. We now know it does not exist for this virus using current vaccines

 

We were not assuming. What I posted was based on the evidence. I posted evidence at that time showing the vaccines were preventing 90% or more of infections. If you will remember there was no counter evidence at that time. That was a fact then and is a fact now for a certain time period. We aren’t assuming anything about that now either. There were studies early showing sterilizing immunity. In fact evidence has been presented in this thread that the breakthrough infection rate in the US is still only 1%. This would still be considered strong evidence for sterilizing immunity.

What was an incorrect assumption was that immunity from vaccination would have the same longevity as that from natural immunity. I’ve always been skeptical of that, but there was early evidence it would be and assurances from “experts” vaccine induced immunity was superior to naturally acquired immunity.

I am happy to concede the evidence today is vastly different from the evidence in existence early on. The study from Qatar makes that clear. You have turned out to be correct and I have turned out to be incorrect on the longevity of infection prevention. As you know I follow the evidence. At this point the evidence is that the vaccines are very good at preventing infection, but only for a very short period of time.

On natural immunity I’ve been trying for two years to get people to accept it as part of whatever level of herd immunity we achieve. It looks now like it will be the primary component of herd immunity.

Anyway, when the evidence no longer supports my position I’m happy to concede I was wrong and will move on to accepting the best evidence we have today.

 

It is impossible to reason with humans in denial of facts.

 

It's concerning. I'll be getting a Moderna booster instead of Pfizer (my basic vaccination was with Pfizer). It does seem like the Pfizer wanes pretty rapidly. No, I don't have any data on how long the high titer of neutralizing antibodies last after a third shot. The third shots are recent so we don't have this longer term piece of info yet.

 

Amen.

I have and will continue to cite what has been found by serious use of science based medical research.

I wish you would do the same, but by now I don't hold out much hope of that EVER happening.

 

Who do YOU suggest I appeal to when it comes to understanding what science has determined to be the case?

You talk about doing research. But, then you want to ignore that research by claiming I'm "appealing to authority".

And, YES. I absolutely DO see science based medical authorities such as NAIAD, CDC, WHO and others. They are the ones who are carrying out clinical trials and studies, evaluating the science of such work by others, and ensuring valid progress on this issue of COVID.

So, when you claim something, you need to identify who it is that YOU see as authoritative - you need to cite it.

And, that is ESPECIALLY true when you find something that you don't think matches what these experts have found.[/QUOTE]

 

EVIDENCE and CRITICAL THOUGHT for “authority”.

NOT a bureaucratic organization shown repeatedly to have ignored all known evidence.

No. What you and @gnoib posted IS NOT BASED ON ANY RESEARCH. It’s unsubstantiated OPINION in direct opposition to all available evidence.

I wish your approach was feasible in the real world, but it isn’t. I wish science and scientists and organizations built on science COULD be trusted explicitly. But they can’t be. Not even peer reviewed research can be trusted explicitly. As you can see above in the exchange with @truth and justice, even peer reviewed evidence can mislead when other pertinent information is withheld. Sometimes we have to look at what’s actually going on around us as evidence as well. For example, I would not have known I needed to go looking for better evidence on long term efficacy of Covid vaccines if I had not been aware of actual realities of infection and vaccination rates in places like Vermont. Reality showed me the peer reviewed evidence presented in the US is not the whole story. Turns out the people you trust completely are again withholding information. They even fooled me and I don’t trust them completely—I just fell for accepting the evidence they used to come to their conclusions.

I have made mistakes. It took me months to figure out we were being told to wear masks in the WRONG places. I will never forgive myself for missing something so obvious. It may have cost someone their life. I should have known because I deal with viral respiratory disease mitigation and prevention every dang day. But the folks you trust are either complete incompetents or are lying because the still haven’t given correct advice. Same on mask type. Same was true for aerosol spread. Over and over these organizations are shown to be incompetent or untruthful but nobody cares. They are giving you advice that has killed hundreds of thousands and you still don’t think critically about what they tell you.

I do. I asked you to show me a case where I haven’t. You can’t do so. Case closed. You even reject indisputable evidence I present in black and white.

Again. I do. What I post is always researched extensively and well documented with the best available evidence. That’s why you and others can’t ever post actual evidence when you tell me I’m wrong etc. Because my position is ALWAYS based on the best available evidence.

If you will actually read the exchange that prompted your reply to me here you will see the first thing I did was ask the poster to supply evidence for their claim. They never have. Because it’s a lie of those you trust that he repeated. There is NO evidence to support his claims.

My suggestion is you hold your authorities to the same standard you hold me to. The same standard I uphold—supplying actual evidence for my positions.

 

CDC Director Admits "We May Need To Update Our Definition Of 'Fully Vaccinated'"


An honest accounting would include natural immunity.

 

do you think we will have new deadly viruses we have to deal with by 2030, maybe

 

You continually cite career bureaucrats and big pharma. That proves you cannot distinguish between snake oil salesmen and actual scientists.

While you incessantly regurgitate government and pharma falsehoods, you utterly ignore the words and warnings of Peter McCullough, Robert Malone, Luc Montagnier, and the many hundreds of well qualified whistleblowers.

That's all I need to see....

 

I have never cited big pharma. And, I do not cite bureaucrats on science.

If you think know someone with an answer on a specific question, then CITE THEM.

If you can't cite them on a specific question, then you've got nothing.

 

Do you want to go over a list of the false information spread by McCullough?

I don't know what motivates those whose names you mention, but they are on the record as significant sources of false information.

 

Parroting misinformation repeatedly is not" science based medical research"

 

republicans mandate students stay home that get vaccinated for 30 days after each shot

"Florida School Requiring Vaccinated Students to Stay Home for 30 Days After Each Dose"

https://www.newsweek.com/florida-sc...nts-stay-home-30-days-after-each-dose-1639693

they also said they won't hire any teachers that are vaccinated

 

Fake News. One SINGLE private school.

Where is Biden's Mandate? He announced it as 'critical' nearly two months ago, and has produced squat. Not even an Executive order. What's the hold up?

TN Special Session for Freedom and Liberty:

Tennessee Legislature COVID ‘Special Session.’

Short list of possible genuine accomplishments.

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/481166/

Stand Tall Tennessee!

 

LOL The link that you call fake news states that it is a single private school

 

Now I know you are grossly misinformed because SCIENCE has proven that the amount of people catching the virus is about the same amongst Vaccinated and Unvacinnated. The jab prevents nobody from catching the virus, but only greatly minimizes its effects. This has been proven and verified by every hospital in the nation. I bet if you go down to your local hospital and ask staff instead of watching propaganda, you would learn the truth. I know this for a fact as I work with the hospital industry and have been through a few covid wings. I find it hilarious that people insist doctors are lying to me and CNN is telling you the truth.

 

Obviously, the President doesn't engage in vapid bluster, but neither does he regard the legal imposition of common sense measures in the interest of public health to be a measure taken likely. Some extremists are in denial of the constitutional power of states that is a matter of settled law:

States have the legal and constitutional authority to require that the people who live in that state be vaccinated, or to introduce a vaccine mandate.

The authority for the state being able to compel vaccination—the affirmation of that authority—goes all the way back to a U.S. Supreme Court case in 1905 called Jacobson v. Massachusetts. That case arose in the midst of an outbreak of smallpox in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 1902. Cambridge introduced an ordinance requiring all adults be vaccinated or revaccinated against smallpox. If they didn’t [get vaccinated], they would have to pay a fine of $5.

Jacobson was a resident of Cambridge who, for a number of reasons, objected to the vaccination mandate and brought a lawsuit against Massachusetts for the mandate. He raised a number of arguments, including one that his constitutionally protected liberty interests were being infringed by this mandate.

In that case, the Supreme Court—and —said that states have under their police powers, which is under the Constitution, the authority to enact reasonable regulations as necessary to protect public health, public safety, and the common good. Vaccination mandates constitute exactly that kind of permissible state action to protect the public’s health. Even though it’s 115 years old, this continues to be the benchmark case on the state’s power to mandate vaccination.

In response to the argument about this individual liberty interest, the court said that sometimes individual interests might have to yield to state laws that endeavour to protect the health of everybody—the “common good.” The court said: “The rights of the individual may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint to be enforced by reasonable regulations as the safety of the general public may demand.”

https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2020/can-covid-19-vaccines-be-mandatory-in-the-us-and-who-decides

​

Despite the law and the well-being of the community, some rave for unbridled permissiveness in such matters of public safety:

​