Courts ruled on Covid Mandates
General Topic
Contributors to this thread:
scentman 13-Jan-22
iceman 13-Jan-22
lamb 13-Jan-22
JohnMC 13-Jan-22
Grey Ghost 13-Jan-22
Bowfreak 13-Jan-22
Treeline 13-Jan-22
HDE 13-Jan-22
spike78 13-Jan-22
Lawdog 13-Jan-22
azelkhntr 13-Jan-22
spike78 13-Jan-22
HDE 13-Jan-22
[email protected] 13-Jan-22
longbeard 13-Jan-22
HDE 13-Jan-22
DanaC 13-Jan-22
Grey Ghost 13-Jan-22
HDE 13-Jan-22
Lawdog 13-Jan-22
JL 13-Jan-22
HDE 13-Jan-22
azelkhntr 14-Jan-22
Treeline 14-Jan-22
Lawdog 14-Jan-22
70lbDraw 14-Jan-22
Treeline 14-Jan-22
KSflatlander 14-Jan-22
Grey Ghost 14-Jan-22
Treeline 14-Jan-22
70lbDraw 14-Jan-22
Grey Ghost 14-Jan-22
[email protected] 14-Jan-22
Grey Ghost 14-Jan-22
HDE 14-Jan-22
[email protected] 14-Jan-22
Grey Ghost 14-Jan-22
txhunter58 14-Jan-22
stealthycat 14-Jan-22
HDE 14-Jan-22
HDE 15-Jan-22
JL 15-Jan-22
Grey Ghost 15-Jan-22
Grey Ghost 15-Jan-22
HDE 15-Jan-22
HDE 15-Jan-22
HDE 15-Jan-22
Jegs.mi 15-Jan-22
HDE 16-Jan-22
HDE 16-Jan-22
Grey Ghost 16-Jan-22
[email protected] 16-Jan-22
HDE 16-Jan-22
TGbow 16-Jan-22
KSflatlander 16-Jan-22
TGbow 16-Jan-22
KsRancher 16-Jan-22
WV Mountaineer 16-Jan-22
HDE 17-Jan-22
HDE 17-Jan-22
HDE 17-Jan-22
bigeasygator 17-Jan-22
HDE 17-Jan-22
Bob H in NH 18-Jan-22
stealthycat 18-Jan-22
HDE 18-Jan-22
[email protected] 18-Jan-22
[email protected] 18-Jan-22
[email protected] 18-Jan-22
Matt 18-Jan-22
KSflatlander 18-Jan-22
txhunter58 18-Jan-22
BowSniper 19-Jan-22
KsRancher 19-Jan-22
HDE 19-Jan-22
[email protected] 19-Jan-22
BowSniper 19-Jan-22
BowSniper 19-Jan-22
txhunter58 19-Jan-22
Nemophilist 19-Jan-22
WV Mountaineer 19-Jan-22
Grey Ghost 19-Jan-22
bigswivle 19-Jan-22
spike78 19-Jan-22
WV Mountaineer 19-Jan-22
WV Mountaineer 19-Jan-22
Heat 21-Jan-22
azelkhntr 21-Jan-22
Grey Ghost 21-Jan-22
itshot 21-Jan-22
Grey Ghost 25-Jan-22
From: scentman
13-Jan-22
Did not back Health care though... freaking counrty is going nuts.

13-Jan-22
pretty sure the mandate still stands for fed contractors. what a cluster...

From: iceman
13-Jan-22
oh great! another Covid thread

From: lamb
13-Jan-22
iceman why did you click on it???? don't like it don't open it freakin simple

From: JohnMC
13-Jan-22
I may not be correct but my understanding is a company can still require employees to be vaccinated. The government just can't require them to force employees to be vaccinated. So some/many large companies may still require it.

13-Jan-22
"I may not be correct but my understanding is a company can still require employees to be vaccinated."

i think you are correct.

From: Grey Ghost
13-Jan-22
Personally, I think the SC got it mostly right. They basically ruled that employers have the right to mandate vaccine requirements as they see fit, or not to. Since the government is also an employer, the SC was consistent by allowing them to keep their mandates in place.

The medicare and medicaid health care mandates is more of a gray area to me. Since those health care facilities receive funds from the government to fund their operations, I guess the SC decided they were also employees of the government, just like the military is, and therefore are subject to their employer's (the government) mandates.

Just my initial thoughts.....

Matt

From: Bowfreak
13-Jan-22
Spot on JohnMC.

From: Treeline
13-Jan-22
Still looking at being fired on January 31 from my employer…

Doubt this particular ruling will sway them, even though illegal.

From: HDE
13-Jan-22
Yes, the ruling means that the executive branch cannot use its thug enforcer (OSHA) to make a business implement it. A business can still make the mistake and mandate it though, but only through company policy. However, if a business "mandates" a SARS-2 vaccine, they may also have to require all of them now. It would be tough to pick and choose since all viral and bacterial infections are a reality in the workplace, and can affect the workplaces' safe environment.

Especially once the process of weakening and ending the pandemic is complete. It will also be tough to hold hostage any employee that doesn't want to receive it, because now businesses are free to choose whether or not to require it making the job market that much more open...

From: spike78
13-Jan-22

spike78's Link
And then their is Canada with an unvaxxed tax.

From: Lawdog
13-Jan-22
Has anyone actually read the opinion or are you relying upon what you heard? SC opinions usually have far reaching implications that are not necessarily addressed in the opinion. If you're interested and don't want to rely on other people's opinions (no matter the source), you can find the opinion here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a244_hgci.pdf and draw your own conclusions.

From: azelkhntr
13-Jan-22
I'm awaiting the rulings publishing as well.

From: spike78
13-Jan-22
I don’t have much faith in the courts when one day they rule next day it’s over turned. It’s more about personal beliefs then laws. FUBAR

From: HDE
13-Jan-22
^^^except the only one to over turn this decision is themselves. They don't have a precedent for that.

13-Jan-22
"The question before us is not how to respond to the pandemic, but who holds the power to do so. The answer is clear: Under the law as it stands today, that power rests with the States and Congress, not OSHA. In saying this much, we do not impugn the intentions behind the agency’s mandate. Instead, we only discharge our duty to enforce the law’s demands when it comes to the question who may govern the lives of 84 million Americans. Respecting those demands may be trying in times of stress. But if this Court were to abide them only in more tranquil conditions, declarations of emergencies would never end and the liberties our Constitution’s separation of powers seeks to preserve would amount to little."

i read it lawdog. looks to me that the only part of the mandate that was struck down was the part being enforced by OSHA. The part of the mandate that applies to federal employees and federal contractors, as well as health care workers is still in effect...currently.

looks like private employers are still free to require vaccination as a condition of employment if they choose to do so.

13-Jan-22
They forgot "the individual" when stating where the power of how to respond to a pandemic lies.

From: longbeard
13-Jan-22
So if I work for a local municipality, how does the SC decision affect me? Is a local government considered “Government Entity/Branch” or is it considered private ?

From: HDE
13-Jan-22
Here's where OSHA missed the boat. OSHA could have used its authority to require wearing a mask "while on the clock" to prevent spread, and adapting CDC guidelines of distancing. That ends when the employee is off the clock.

The issue this has is, as the concurring opinion states, the vaccine stretches beyond the workplace and into the very personal lives of employees (as does the testing), which neither OSHA nor the employer have any dictatorial authority for occupations that don't present any "grave danger" that you would normally see in a medical (or research) facility where that very "new hazard" exists.

The dissenting opinion was whiney and read like a broken record. They could have easily summed it up in half the length of content.

So, the analogy (in a very simplified version) would be that I have to use safety protocols at work when using a ladder or when splicing a circuit AND I have to use those same protocols at home regardless. No choice. If OSHA found out that I didn't, they could fine me. If my employer found out I didn't, they could reprimand me. These two conditions cannot be enforced by either in my personal life off the clock.

Also, it kicks back the authority to the states. The implication it has is that crybaby blue ran states can implement this on a state level, only to have it challenged in state courts. However, once again, making someone receive the vaccine stretches beyond the limits of "while on the clock". Although the opinion concludes the states have more authority to manage the health of its residents than does the federal government, nothing in the law (federal or state) prevents a resident to flee to another state that doesn't require it as a condition of employment, nullifying the effectiveness of the requirement in the first place. Also, the concurring spells out that without the legislative process involved, a single [executive] branch can rule indefinite and unchecked by bureaucracy rather than democracy which could nullify a state from taking things too far.

I read the opinion as well. Almost all 30 pages because I lost interest in the dissenting opinion on page 27....

From: DanaC
13-Jan-22
" The dissenting opinion was whiney and read like a broken record. They could have easily summed it up in half the length of content. "

Umm, who wrote it?

From: Grey Ghost
13-Jan-22
"So if I work for a local municipality, how does the SC decision affect me? "

Not much, as I understand it. Your employer can still mandate vaccines, if they choose to, unless otherwise prohibited by your state's legislation. The federal government can't mandate what your employer chooses to do, based on today's ruling.

Someone correct me, If I'm wrong.

Matt

From: HDE
13-Jan-22
The ruling clearly states a bureaucracy cannot assume powers not granted by legislative action. OSHA being directed to impose a requirement with penalty violated that. Also, the powers granted them cease outside the work environment. The vaccine stretches beyond that.

An employer can "mandate" anything they want. However, a vaccine mandate will stretch beyond the environment it is for, and, for a hazard that is not necessarily absolute.

From: Lawdog
13-Jan-22
Well, the answer to a lot of questions is complicated. But to boil it down to its essence, States are subject to many aspects of the Constitution. States and local government have the same 3 branches of government, executive, legislative, and judicial. Therefore, the rationale of the majority of the justices can be applied to state and local governments, particularly the portion of the opinion referenced by Ricky. In my opinion mandating covid shots (I refuse to call it a vaccine), is a legislative function and even that may not be constitutional. We'll just need to see how this shakes out and how lawyers will use the language of the opinion in confronting state and local mandates. IMO the opinion contains a lot of useful language and reasoning. The Dissenting Opinion was written by 3 justices, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, and is not law or precedent that lower federal courts must follow.

From: JL
13-Jan-22
My good bud works at an imaging center (radiology). He has all the vaccines and boosters. He just told me yesterday he got the omni-virus last week from work. All of his co-workers got it and he picked it up. He said he was tired for a couple of days...did the 5 day stay at home rest and then went back to work. Another case of the "flu-rona". I had a roofer come over to the house last week to give an estimate. He got the virus prior to getting vaxed. He also got the virus a second time well after getting vaxed and boostered. So in his case, natural immunity plus the vax/booster didn't do him any good.

As we read more and more about vaxed/boosterd folks still getting the virus, ya have to question the hysteria over this.

From: HDE
13-Jan-22
"looks like private employers are still free to require vaccination as a condition of employment if they choose to do so."

Maybe. They also get to assume full liability...

14-Jan-22
"Maybe. They also get to assume full liability..."

not likely. its still the employees choice to get vaccinated or leave.

From: azelkhntr
14-Jan-22
When the majority of the employees tell the employers NO! then the game is over.

From: Treeline
14-Jan-22
Should have taken less than 5 minutes to deliberate and should have been unanimously unconstitutional across the board. As well as illegal under 21 CFR 50.23 and 50.24 (Nurenburg) to force anyone to take part in a medical experiment that they did not want to participate in.

From: Lawdog
14-Jan-22
I was listening to the news this morning, and they had a segment that spoke to this issue. The guy noted that some large businesses like Citibank (that was the example used), who is continuing its mandate, can afford to lose 10% of its workforce without blinking. However, small businesses are defined as having 100-500 employees. If they lose the same or a greater percentage of employees in this economy, they might be out of business. At some point you would hope businesses would think pragmatically.

14-Jan-22
"As well as illegal under 21 CFR 50.23 and 50.24 (Nurenburg) to force anyone to take part in a medical experiment that they did not want to participate in."

total crap. even where the mandate is still in effect 1. vaccine is not experimental 2. nobody is forcing anyone to do anything 3. the "nuremberg code" is not a law

From: 70lbDraw
14-Jan-22
So, y’all help me understand something please. At work we were told that, until the courts make a decision, the unvaxed must mask up, yet if you are vaxed, masks are optional but not required.

Now if I’m not mistaken, we have established the fact that vaccinated folks can still get infected and spread it? Am I correct? And if so, why is it acceptable for a vaccinated person to spread it around, but the unvaxed, need to positively mask up? What am I missing here? And please don’t tell me it’s a safety measure to protect the unvaxed.

From: Treeline
14-Jan-22
Ricky, the US Law in 21 CFR is where those laws are codified.

Yes, these injections are experimental. They are only approved under the EAU.

There is no liability to the manufacturers of these injections since they are under the EAU.

So far they are proving to be ineffective and unsafe.

Take all you want. I will pass

From: KSflatlander
14-Jan-22
70lbs- not sure why masking has anything to do with the court or why there is an inconsistency. Regardless, if it’s a private employer then they can make the internal policies as long as it doesn’t violate the law. It sounds like someone told somebody and then they told you. Ask for the policy in writing.

From: Grey Ghost
14-Jan-22
"Yes, these injections are experimental. They are only approved under the EAU.

The Pfizer vaccine received full FDA approval in August of 2021. Perhaps you missed the news.

Matt

14-Jan-22

Ricky The Cabel Guy's Link
"Yes, these injections are experimental. They are only approved under the EAU.

There is no liability to the manufacturers of these injections since they are under the EAU."

false. The pfizer shot has full fda approval.

the law you claim codifies the nuremberg code does not apply. even under the vaccine mandate, nobody is being forced to take part in a medical experiment. 1. the vaccine is not experimental as it has full fda approval 2. nobody is being forced to take it anyway. everyone has the choice to walk away. may not be the choice you like, but you still have the choice.

you might have a case if people were being detained, against their will, and given a forced injection. we both know that is not happening.

From: Treeline
14-Jan-22
No, the Pfizer that is in the US is not the one that was approved. Sorry.

Take all you want. Hell you can have mine! I’m not forcing anyone to take it or not.

There in lies the problem…. You guys still don’t get it. Have fun!

From: 70lbDraw
14-Jan-22
KS, our previously small15 million dollar company has recently been acquired by a larger 15 Billion dollar company! We are still an independent facility, so our management tries to keep it “family like”. Our new mother company wanted to err on the side of caution, so that’s what we were told to do.

I’m just trying to figure out if I’M ignorant as hell, or has common sense completely left the building ?

From: Grey Ghost
14-Jan-22
"No, the Pfizer that is in the US is not the one that was approved. Sorry.

Where do you get this nonsense? Let me guess, you heard it on a Joe Rogan podcast. LOL. There is only one Pfizer vaccine. They are currently working on another that is suppose to target Omicron specifically, but don't expect to have that done until March.

Matt

14-Jan-22
I think people are referring to the vaccine being used is still labeled by its EUA name. I don't know that Comirnaty is being used in the US yet.

Same formulation and Phizer is protected against liability for both by the PREP act.

From: Grey Ghost
14-Jan-22

Grey Ghost's Link
"On August 23, 2021, FDA announced the first approval of a COVID-19 vaccine. The vaccine has been known as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, and will now be marketed as Comirnaty, for the prevention of COVID-19 in individuals 16 years of age and older."

Matt

From: HDE
14-Jan-22
"not likely. its still the employees choice to get vaccinated or leave."

Maybe. Depends on the ability to leave, as in replaced employment. It's not as simple as you think to just job hop. If an employee "must" take the vaccine, or face termination with zero prospects to replace that employment, and there is an adverse reaction, yeah, the employer can be liable. It could be argued the employee made a choice under duress from the employer.

Simply quitting a professional, 6 figure a year job to go work at Subway making sandwiches hardly constitutes for replaced employment, especially when filing for unemployment. All you are obligated to do is apply for like-kind employment that is within the scope of your skillset and expertise...

14-Jan-22
Comirnaty was approved but the vials being used in the US are still the EUA BNT162b2 version. I can't see any meaningful difference if the info is accurate.

From: Grey Ghost
14-Jan-22
Glunt,

There isn't any meaningful difference. It just means they haven't started using the vials with the new label on it, yet. Like you said, it's the same vaccine, with the same liability protections under PREP, which makes complete sense. Can you imagine the can of worms, if the liability changed just because of a labeling change?

The point is, Treeline's posts were just another example of the misinformation that is promoted by the likes of Joe Rogan and his guests. And it's a reflection of how dangerous confirmation bias has become to our society. I'm glad you don't form opinions that way.

Matt

14-Jan-22
"Maybe. Depends on the ability to leave, as in replaced employment. It's not as simple as you think to just job hop."

didnt say it was simple. not all life choices are simple. if an employer requires a clean drug test, and you choose to test dirty, you are subject to termination...six figure professional position or not. you are not guaranteed a job, comparable or otherwise. choices have consequences.

From: txhunter58
14-Jan-22
The problem is that treeline is taking the word of “experts” he doesn’t know personally that are feeding him lies that he accepts as truth

14-Jan-22

Ricky The Cabel Guy's Link
"No, the Pfizer that is in the US is not the one that was approved. Sorry."

please read the fda link. both the comirnaty and pfizer-bioNTech covid-19 vaccines are included in the 8.23.21 fda approval. that is a fact.

prep act has been around since 05 or so and is nothing new for the covid-19 vaccines. been used many times.

From: stealthycat
14-Jan-22
but it worked

millions including me were bullied/coerced/forced into the shots

14-Jan-22
stealthycat...

unfortunately i think that was the goal from the start.

From: HDE
14-Jan-22
"didnt say it was simple. not all life choices are simple."

Then don't say that if you don't like it, just quit.

"if an employer requires a clean drug test, and you choose to test dirty, you are subject to termination"

Not the same thing. Drug tests are covered under the authority of OSHA. When you sign up, you knowingly understand the consequences of testing hot. You also agree to submit to the drug test pre-employment as well as while under employment. Vaccines thrown in all of a sudden because of a democrat's narrative, yeah, not the same thing.

"...six figure professional position or not. you are not guaranteed a job, comparable or otherwise. choices have consequences."

The point was, not as easy as you think to walk away from 6 figures to go make minimum wage. Just quitting ain't an option really...

15-Jan-22
its really not about whether the choice is easy or not. people walk away from great careers every day for reasons that are important to them. the question was about whether it was legal for a private employer to require a vaccine. it all comes down to which hill are you willing to die on...for both the employer and the employee. is an employee willing to walk away from a lucrative career...and is an employer willing to lose a certain percentage of their top employees.

From: HDE
15-Jan-22
^^^ agree.

From: JL
15-Jan-22
What does this do for the tennis guy being detained in Australia? His next stop was the for a US tournament.

From: Grey Ghost
15-Jan-22
"What does this do for the tennis guy being detained in Australia? "

Does anyone care? It's tennis, after all. ;-)

Matt

15-Jan-22
"What does this do for the tennis guy being detained in Australia? His next stop was the for a US tournament."

as it stands right now, doesn't every traveler entering the united states by air have to prove vaccination? he should have to abide by the same rules as every other traveler. i guess he could always fly into mexico and walk across.

From: Grey Ghost
15-Jan-22

Grey Ghost's Link
Well, it looks like large corporations are taking different paths in response to the SC ruling. Citigroup (65,000 employees) is keeping the mandates in place. General Electric (56,000 employees) is not.

Matt

From: HDE
15-Jan-22
“"Our goal was to keep everyone in the city at all times. We sincerely hope that all our colleagues will take action to obey,” said Sarah, Head of Human Resources at the company."

Obey? What, is this chic a Kindergarten administrator or something? The political leanings of a company's leadership will tell you what you need to know...

15-Jan-22

Ricky The Cabel Guy's Link
"Obey? What, is this chic a Kindergarten administrator or something?"

id say its pretty shitty reporting at Texas News Today considering what she really said...

"Our goal has always been to keep everyone at Citi, and we sincerely hope all of our colleagues take action to comply."

that reporter should issue an apology.

From: HDE
15-Jan-22
Quotes are quotes Rick, don't know what else to tell you.

Obey, comply. It's just semantics and it's still the same thing...

From: HDE
15-Jan-22
"Political leanings do not trump making money for investors and companies." Strin

To a point.

From: Jegs.mi
15-Jan-22

Jegs.mi's embedded Photo
Jegs.mi's embedded Photo

From: HDE
16-Jan-22
"How so? Strin"

Members of boards for a company choose CEO's based on the investors bias. If investors tend to lean more liberal, CEO's chosen will be more liberal. If investors are more conservative, you get the idea. A liberal CEO likely won't be appointed to a fossil fuels company unless investors want that company to go more "green"...

16-Jan-22
"Quotes are quotes Rick, don't know what else to tell you."

some are real and some are fake.

"Our goal was to keep everyone in the city at all times. We sincerely hope that all our colleagues will take action to obey,”

"Our goal has always been to keep everyone at Citi, and we sincerely hope all of our colleagues take action to comply."

if you think those quotes...one real and one fake...imply the same thing i dont know what to tell you. the actual quote is simply saying that Citibank sincerely hopes to keep all their employees, therefore they hope everyone complies with the mandate.

the fake quote has a very different tone and meaning. that was the intention. if i was the person supposedly being quoted, i would be demanding a retraction and an apology.

From: HDE
16-Jan-22
^^^ not my job to research a quote in an article, that's the editor's job.

Never once said the quotes were the same. Said the words "obey" and "comply" were. Because they are...

16-Jan-22
same with "our goal was to keep everyone in the city at all times" and "our goal has always been to keep everyone at Citi"... do those mean the same things too?

nope, i agree with you. it's not our job to research quotes...its just a damn shame we cant trust those whose job it is. thats why this country is in the fix its in. the people who we are supposed to trust to give us the news are pushing a narrative.

From: Grey Ghost
16-Jan-22
Ricky and HDE,

I'll take blame for posting the Texas News article with the inaccurate quote. The original article was from the WSJ. They got the quote correct. But, since WSJ requires a subscription to read, which I don't do, I decided to post the Texas News piece instead. I failed to see the inaccurate quote in it. I agree with Ricky that the editor of Texas News should issue an apology, and edit the article appropriately.

Matt

16-Jan-22
So I shouldn't trust stuff I read? I read this morning that it was a British guy who took the hostages at the TX synagogue and they don't have a motive yet. Maybe more to the story?

From: HDE
16-Jan-22
Ricky, still talking about "obey" and "comply" in the context being used relative to the vaccine requirement...

From: TGbow
16-Jan-22
My son is in the reserves so he got the vax..he told me today he has Covid.

Hopefully it's true what the stats say...those that have been vaxed usually don't get hit too hard with the virus.

From: KSflatlander
16-Jan-22
Appreciate your son’s service and hope he doesn’t get it too bad.

From: TGbow
16-Jan-22
Thank you KS..me too

From: KsRancher
16-Jan-22
My wife went and got her booster today. She is a teacher and was told if a kid in her class test positive she would have to quarantine at home for 10 days. But if got the booster wouldn't have to miss work or wear a mask if exposed. What I can't figure out is why everyone is just itching to get tested. It's like people want to get tested hoping they have it.

16-Jan-22
Because people are scared to death of getting it. They’ve been led to believe it’s the end times. And, only the fortunate survive the virus. Plus, they get paid to stay at home when they test positive. It’s a win win on that front.

From: HDE
17-Jan-22
^^^ being paid to stay home is a big reason. Unless you need to know because of someone your associated with may have a real adverse complication from it, what's the point in getting tested when "they" won't let it be treated in the first place? A vaccine IS NOT a treatment.

Then there are those that are afraid of their own shadow because don lemon and rachel maddow told them to be.

17-Jan-22
"...what's the point in getting tested when "they" won't let it be treated in the first place?"

theres a number of treatments readily available...especially if early in the infection. various monoclonal antibodies and at least one antiviral are all available. early detection is always best even with more conventional treatments. besides if you are positive, wouldnt responsible adults want to know so they can try to avoid possibly infecting others?

From: HDE
17-Jan-22
^^^^ what anti-viral?

As for your revelatory question, go back and read my post you commented on. In fact, let me help you: "Unless you need to know because of someone your associated with may have a real adverse complication from it"

Weak argument about wanting to know and the infection of others. Asymptomatic spread it also...

17-Jan-22
"^^^^ what anti-viral?"

remdesivir

"Asymptomatic spread it also..."

which is even more of a reason to test, even if symptoms are barely noticeable.

From: HDE
17-Jan-22

HDE's Link
^^^ and take a test away from someone who really needs it? Hypochondriac's are a funny lot...

If the treatments are effective, the "pandemic" would be over...

From: bigeasygator
17-Jan-22
What I can't figure out is why everyone is just itching to get tested. It's like people want to get tested hoping they have it.

I can't speak to everyone's motivations, but my wife and I decided to test ourselves before her grandmother's 90th birthday party. We had been around a number of COVID positive cases over the weekend prior, and thought it prudent to test ourselves before spending time in close proximity to family that were in a higher risk category. We had no symptoms at the time, but decided to test anyway. We both tested positive and decided to abstain from the party. While this strain of the virus is obviously much less severe than others, people are still dying and we figure why take the risk. That was our rationale for testing as of late. We were not "scared" of getting the virus, and for anyone that is scared of contracting, testing themselves will do nothing to prevent them from getting the disease. The only thing it can do from a preventative perspective is to help prevent you from transmitting the disease to others.

17-Jan-22
"^^^ and take a test away from someone who really needs it? Hypochondriac's are a funny lot..."

so now everyone that gets tested is a hypochondriac? I know a number of people that have to be tested at least weekly for work....every time they travel...for medical procedures...etc. like bigeasygator said, many people choose to get tested just because it is the responsible thing to do.

"If the treatments are effective, the "pandemic" would be over..."

treatments don't stop the pandemic, they treat a person once infected.

as far as the vaccines go, they are very effective in terms of preventing hospitalizations and death. so for the vast majority of those vaccinated and boosted, the pandemic actually is over. sure, they might get infected but the chance of serious illness and death is extremely slim. thats all most people ever wanted. as far as the treatments not being that effective, monoclonal antibodies are quite effective but all in all id rather not need them. the most effective thing we have for preventing serious illness and death from covid-19 is the vaccine. thats a fact. some people choose not to take them and thats fine...but some people choose not to wear a safety harness in their bowstand too.

From: HDE
17-Jan-22
^^^ you got me. Good job.

"The only thing it can do from a preventative perspective is to help prevent you from transmitting the disease to others."

Eventually, this will be the norm. All "diseases" are transmitted one to another. Just depends on when the so-called experts decide it's acceptable...

From: Bob H in NH
18-Jan-22
I've tested 3 times: - Once in 2020 before flying across the country to meet my grandson. No symptoms, but we wanted to be sure and it helped the stress of the new parents. - Once a few weeks ago when I had some early symptoms, but was going to babysit the above grandson, while his little brother was born, tested negative, so I went. - third time several days later as symptoms were gone, but wanted to double check before going back into work. Poof, positive and into isolation.

There are reasons to test, but I do see the irony in so many testing so often.

In all of the above my wife never tested, when I popped positive, she had same symptoms and just assumed "yup, you got it too"

From: stealthycat
18-Jan-22
science is wrong often enough to err on the side of caution ... when they say "trust the science" remember Tonga the last few days :(

Tonga Geological Services, Government of Tonga. J0an6uar1iy p1os1o0 atr 0124aldcu:20 PM · 7 Days with no further eruption from Hunga Volcano. It is now declared dormant. ---------------------------- This is a Public Notice from the Tonga Geological Services monitoring the Hunga-Tonga-Hunga-Ha’apai (HTHH) Eruption issued at 6:30 AM, 11/1/2022. Observations of satellite images captured between 6:00 AM, 10/01/2022 yesterday and 5:30 AM, 11/01/2022 this morning are as follows. No volcanic plume was detected during this observation period (see Figure 1). Over 7 days have passed since the last volcanic activity at Hunga-Tonga-Hunga-Ha’apai. Volcanic activity is considered to have ceased, and the volcano has reverted to its normal, non-eruptive state (see Figure 2).

From: HDE
18-Jan-22
I trust the science. I don't necessarily trust the one "reciting" it...

18-Jan-22
Science has a long history of correcting its self if the process is allowed to keep going.

18-Jan-22

18-Jan-22
"I trust the science. I don't necessarily trust the one "reciting" it..."

agree...but when 99% of the medical community all agree on both the safety and benefit of the vaccines, is it a smart idea to believe the 1%?

18-Jan-22
If 99% of the medical community agreed on vaccines, the vaccine mandates being required for Healthcare workers would have never been a story. 99% would have already been vaccinated.

From: Matt
18-Jan-22
“ If 99% of the medical community agreed on vaccines, the vaccine mandates being required for Healthcare workers would have never been a story. 99% would have been already been vaccinated.”

But then the 1% took to YouTube and Rogan podcasts which became the alternative source of medical advice for ~30% of American adults.

From: KSflatlander
18-Jan-22

KSflatlander's Link
96% in the science community is a consensus but go with the 4%.

From: txhunter58
18-Jan-22
I think he was referring to the 96% of US MDs that are vaccinated. Doesn’t surprise me that many of the others in the “medical community”: nurses, technicians, receptionists, and people who clean the place are not vaccinated.

My own local family practice of doctors had 5 MDs. They were 80% vaccinated as one of them, a 53 year old male, decided not to get the vaccine. He died of Covid.

That said, I am against mandates.

From: BowSniper
19-Jan-22

BowSniper's Link
Good article here to share titled, "The Real Reason Why COVID-19 is Exceedingly Difficult To Manage"....

From: KsRancher
19-Jan-22
FINALLY!! A little common sense coming to Kansas starting Feb. 1st. KDHE will no longer do contact tracing. So this crap of a person testing positive and making a bunch of people quarantine will be over.

From: HDE
19-Jan-22
^^^ campaign season begins soon. Then primaries and the general. You will begin seeing a lot of this short term.

19-Jan-22
"If 99% of the medical community agreed on vaccines, the vaccine mandates being required for Healthcare workers would have never been a story. 99% would have already been vaccinated."

i stand corrected...95+%

19-Jan-22
It was actually around 70% -75% before the mandates if looking at the whole medical community. Just a bit higher than the general public.

I'm not against vaccines, just mandates.

From: BowSniper
19-Jan-22

BowSniper's Link
Israel already did a study showing the 4th (FOURTH!!) shot was less effective against Omicron. Maybe lucky #5??? LOL

From: BowSniper
19-Jan-22

BowSniper's embedded Photo
BowSniper's embedded Photo

19-Jan-22
"I'm not against vaccines, just mandates."

ditto.

19-Jan-22
"No more for this guy. Got both early in 20."

both what?

From: txhunter58
19-Jan-22
Less effective in what way?

All I am looking for in a vaccine is preventing death.

From: Nemophilist
19-Jan-22

Nemophilist's embedded Photo
Nemophilist's embedded Photo
:(

19-Jan-22
"Both shots."

what shots? we didn't have any covid-19 shots in 20.

19-Jan-22
I truly think that Shawn, in all his screen names and internet personas, is an extremely smart guy. However, I treat his posts for what they are. Passion ensued with a lot of inflammation for those on the Covid police squad.

However, I gotta say he gets caught up in the madness sometimes. Just blurting out things for a reaction. Think about it strin. if the first shot gave you heart problems, who’s to blame for standing inline for the second one?

Just sayin’…….

From: Grey Ghost
19-Jan-22
Justin,

And here I thought I was the only one seeing Shawn’s hypocrisies. Thanks for confirming I was wrong.

Matt

From: bigswivle
19-Jan-22

bigswivle's embedded Photo
bigswivle's embedded Photo

From: spike78
19-Jan-22
I will get the vaccine when all the different countries and medical experts get the efficiency settled whether it’s the 4th, 5th, or 10th dose lol

19-Jan-22
strin, a decade ago I went to the ER with a very obvious issues. I was examined in a hospital setting with several tests and screenings and declared a diagnosis by a whole team of doctors. Immediate surgery to remove the problem.

I was put to sleep with the understanding that when I woke, my problem was going to be gone. Imagine my surprise when I awoke post surgery, to half that team hovering over my bed. Ecstatic that instead of removing the problem, they were able to “fix” it.

Two years later, the tumor they had in their hands while planning on removing, they put back inside my body. To grow and spread throughout my body. At that point, I was statistically given a 30% chance of surviving 5 years post treatment.

My whole point is I understand trusting doctors. But, I also understand not one doctor can determine your treatment minus your compliance.

I’ll pray you recover from the side affects. And, congratulate you for waking up concerning your own input in your healthcare.

19-Jan-22
Good.

20-Jan-22
"May get cocktail flu A,B, China going forward."

"Gave me the “feel free to forego any future jabs other than than the yearly one”

so you wont get any more covid-19 shots...other than an annual covid-19 shot? how would your reaction to that one be any different than your reaction to the others?

From: Heat
21-Jan-22
Judge in Texas blocked mandate for federal employees today. Let's Go Brandon!

From: azelkhntr
21-Jan-22
Ireland just gave it up starting tomorrow.

From: Grey Ghost
21-Jan-22
Is “Dick Grass” the best fake name you can come up with , Shawn?

You feeling OK, bud?

Matt

From: itshot
21-Jan-22
GG, toooo funny watching folks speculate on identity of a contributor here

From: Grey Ghost
25-Jan-22
Couldn't find another thread to troll elsewhere, Shawn?

Do you need a hug, bud?

Matt

  • Sitka Gear