I would hope the governor is banning mandates and not wearing the mask.
Correct, Florida is "parents' decision."
I think Denmark may be closer to banning children wearing masks. At least they advise parents against them, but I'm not sure about banning.
the vaccine immunity likely confers greater immune response to variants compared.
Anecdotal evidence: I believe my family caught delta, I
great, nice anecdotal evidence.
Meanwhile actual evidence says the exact opposite of that:
These papers supercede earler speculative papers published by Pfizer about how the vaccine response might be stronger based on antibody titers. You can read in the papers themselves that they explicitly supercede the old papers by looking at actual events in the first case and at better markers in the second case.
hope this helps.
Who will do that audit? NSO?
NSO needs to get on Israel's JEDI equivalent. Then there is no option for granular shutdown: it all stays up or none of it stays up, because "military security."
just as IBM wanted two suppliers for the CPU of their upcoming personal computer, the PC. IBM being no stranger to monopoly power and extorsion, they didn't want to be on the receiving end. Hence, AMD got to make and supply the CPU together with Intel.
Which model IBM computer, manufactured by IBM Corporation, contained an AMD CPU (presumably because IBM Corporation decided to allow it to avoid single-supplier lock-in)?
What was the first date AMD started making Intel x86-compatible CPUs?
What was the first date that computer manufactured by IBM Corporation that you found shipped with an AMD CPU inside?
Only 43% of electricity use is residential.
Industrial users require agility and nonuniform scale and aren't interested in romantic homesteader games and plantation fantasies. They want a grid. There's no serious either-or discussion about maintaining trunk-level capacity to move bulk electricity where it's used. This debate is only a meme war.
Somewhere the real Satoshi are taking notes. I wouldn't risk being on that cabal's bad side after the global hyperinflation comes: Roko's Basilisk times twenty-one million.
at the very minimum B has to appear in court and say "No, you don't have the copyright, prove it"
Yes, I see how these rules work.
seems like a nice little game to ban anonymous speech globally, but still pretend we have our precious human rights democracy freedoms.
about par for the course these days,
as is the usual nerd-commintariat bum rush to defend power, and the strained coulda-shoulda copes that everything is still fair and makes sense.
Again and again lately I feel the guy who talks like a total irc clown has more a priori credibility than everyone around him.
The issue is not that the favor their own apps. It's that they:
- ban apps
- ban products
- ban customers
- ban links, websites, ideas, and viewpoints
- force apps in the app store or websites in search to ban their own customers, ideas, or products in their own comment sections or else get banned entirely
- threaten to do these things to create a chilling effect
- tamper with ranking and spam algorithms to do these things and then pretend it was mysterious or "a glitch"
- do these things at the request of the political party in power, to cement their rule, and then are rewarded (or not punished) by that party in return
- coordinate with each other to attack the same person on the same day
When will these politicians do something for the people who vote for them and are concerned about the enormous political power these companies hold subverting democracy, instead of acting for the second-rate also-ran companies lobbying them to elbow onto your screen space or forcibly improve their SEO? feels like our government is run by Nigerian viagra spammers.
I think the missing piece is that in general we don't make medical interventions unless there's evidence of a benefit, not just speculation.
The vaccine has risk which must be balanced against the disease itself. And I mentioned a second reason one might avoid a vaccine for which there's no evidence of benefit: to be in a better situation for booster vaccines later.
It would not be typical for a research article like that to complete the enthymeme and make a recommendation, partly by convention and partly to avoid unnecessarily provoking unhinged responses like yours while trying to get the facts straight. Therefore I don't think it's correct to take the lack of recommendation as a recommendation. Certainly there's not a "lie." Just the opposite: the study contradicts your claim "however long natural immunity lasts, vaccine immunity is likely to last much longer, and be more effective against more infectious variants." This research shows that as best we can without waiting for immunity to wear off or hypothetical variants to come into existence, and is more conclusive than earlier research and speculation, and says the likelihood is close to a wash or possibly better for natural immunity.
If you are a recovered person who got the vaccine I would make peace with that and move on.
But you should not be coercing others into taking the vaccine by ignoring recovered immunity. You don't have evidence behind you when you do that, and if the situation changes, which I think is unlikely, it's still very unlikely you will ever have strong enough evidence to warrant coercion; you'll only end up with evidence you feel is strong enough to make a personal decision.
Finally, I don't think you should be allowed to coerce anyone period when the vaccine is so effective that it reduces the risk of the disease to below other common endemic diseases: there's no "emergency" in the risk of unvaccinated people to vaccinated. But that's a different story.
The relation to this one is that it should be possible to discuss the current evidence without melting down into calling "lies" and "bullshit" and so on. I think the evidence is clearly against your view right now, but if you think otherwise you should be able to synthesize past evidence with current, associate levels of certainty to various claims, take a step back, etc., not just scream "nonconform! mob!"
Thank you, sir. You did a good thing.
It should be none of their business. Everyone signed the form it was "voluntary" when they got their vaccine then forgot it all and started acting as if this were East Germany. I'm horrified by how fast they lose their principles with toy high stakes, not even real high stakes.
It's not at all stupid to avoid the danger of the vaccine if you've already recovered from the real disease. According to the best current research, it's smart to avoid the vaccine if you're recovered. Especially to young people, the risk of adverse reactions is higher for recovered people, and no risk at all is warranted since the immunity, including to variants, is as good or better, and lasts as long or longer, according to current evidence.
Ad26/Ad5 vaccines like J&J and Oxford can develop immunity to the carrier adenovirus, breaking future vaccines based on the same platform so they won't work on you. Probably you can only get a few vaccines of this kind before that adenovirus is just burned for you. mRNA vaccines can develop an allergy to the PEG carrier, a problem that stopped use of the mRNA platform for chronic genetic problems and forced its use for rare shots like vaccines. The "ten years of research" into mRNA that is often mentioned was not vaccine research, but research for highly-profitable drugs you have to take every day or every week for the rest of your life, and that didn't work out because of PEG allergy so there is also a problem with taking endless mRNA boosters. If you're worried about "variants," and you've already recovered from the coronavirus, you shouldn't get a vaccine because it will put you in a worse position for boosters later. That's a second reason it's smart for recovered people to skip the vaccine.
Yet it's more difficult to prove you're recovered than to prove a government nurse stuck a needle in your arm on such-and-such date. Many people are not in the position to do it through no fault of their own because they were infected in the first wave when FDA was blocking the availability of tests. Others might have been able to prove it with an antibody test, but didn't bother until their titer faded, and ordinary folks outside studies can't afford the fancier reactivity tests. Even people who are in a position to prove it are not given the opportunity. "Private companies" don't care. Get the vax, peasant.
That's just one example of why we should not allow coercive policies that interfere with a person's private medical care. These issues are complicated, and high stakes. Neither the venue operator nor the chattering commentariat has the proper incentive to let you make a properly thoughtful decision about your health.
Besides that, there are people in specific unusual situations they cannot and should not have to explain or justify to you. And there are people who just came to a different conclusion.
If this had the IFR of ebola, and the vaccine we had barely worked well enough to manage it, the situation would be different. But with the stats where they are this is just wrong, very wrong.
Our public health officials really let us down by granting EUA then allowing these authoritarian, dismissive, ignorant coercive systems to flourish, undermining the limitations of the EUA. They may feel they've shirked responsibility, but I think history will tell a different story about them. I think they will be scorned in med schools for decades for this negligence.
people who are vaccinated should get priority access to medical treatment if they become sick.
The EUA says in black and white,
It is your choice to receive or not receive the Covid-19 Vaccine. [If] you decide to not receive it, it will not change your standard of medical care.
The medical profession apparently felt your idea was morally wrong. I agree with them.
https://www.tripsavvy.com/coun...
That's just one example.
Yes, that's all it is, one example. It's an extremely rare and specific requirement and no precedent for the privacy land grab your faction is trying to accomplish. I understand you claim justifications for the landgrab, but precedent is absolutely not one of the justifications.
when have we ever had to provide proof of health status before traveling?
It's pretty common for (some) international travel
No, it is not at all common in international travel. I have never been required to prove any vaccination when travelling to Europe, Middle East, or Asia over the last thirty years. I'm sure it happens, but it is not common, and the people on social media claiming this are generally in a position to know it. They are taking advantage of your ignorance and good faith to mislead. That should bother you.
"The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy." -- Louisiana governor Edwin Edwards
