From the story: "The science is clear: Vaccines are a safe and effective way to prevent serious illness, hospitalization and death from the coronavirus, and vaccine mandates are an effective tool in promoting widespread vaccinations.
Still, the battle to inoculate the nation against the coronavirus has reached a fever pitch in recent months. President Biden has focused on getting as many Americans as possible vaccinated against the coronavirus, most notably rolling out wide-reaching vaccine mandates for government employees and for businesses with more than 100 workers.
But Republicans have grown increasingly hostile to the notion of mandatory vaccines — despite vaccine mandates existing in the background in parts of the United States since the 19th century — and have parlayed the fight against COVID-19 into a political battle, with vaccine mandates as the latest frontier in the great American defense of freedom and liberty.
Most Americans have in fact received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine.
A September Pew Research study found that in August, 73% of American adults said they had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, and a majority said they had received the full course of the vaccine.
Why Biden Has Taken Up Vaccine Mandates And The Political Fight Over Them
Among Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters, 86% said they were at least partially vaccinated against the virus, compared to 60% of Republicans. Unvaccinated Americans also tend to be younger than 50 and less educated.
For some of those who have not been vaccinated, the message from conservative leaders like Abbott and DeSantis about choice and liberty resonates, despite public health guidance on how to prevent serious illness and death from the coronavirus.
"Somehow it has morphed into not getting the vaccine as a way to defend their freedom and resist this 'tyranny,' " said Ken Resnicow, a professor in the school of public health at the University of Michigan. "There's not many countries that have this dynamic."
"Somehow it has morphed into not getting the vaccine as a way to defend their freedom and resist this 'tyranny,' " said Ken Resnicow, a professor in the school of public health at the University of Michigan. "There's not many countries that have this dynamic."
Resnicow referenced a study on which he was the lead author that found a correlation between a person's belief in conspiracy theories and the apocalypse, and their willingness to actively prevent the spread of the coronavirus. Particularly among self-identified evangelicals, Resnicow has found a distinct rejection of the coronavirus vaccine, which he said has made vaccine hesitancy especially difficult to address.
"There's a sensitive issue — that it's conflated with religion and evangelicalism, and people are scared to touch that third rail. And I think we have to confront how religion and science are now at loggerheads, and that wasn't always the case," he said.
"There's this 30% of evangelicals for whom science is almost the enemy."
Limaye said that particularly among Republicans, the idea of freedom — a core tenet of the American ideal — has given people a basis on which to pin anti-science rhetoric.
This idea of liberty and autonomy — this comes up a lot as those underlying values of individuals that feel as though we don't really need to be mandating vaccines," she said,
"I don't think it's an issue that they hate vaccines themselves. They hate the idea that vaccines are essentially forcing them into doing something they don't want to do. Vaccines are just sort of the casualty of all this."
Southwest Airlines asked a federal court to reject a lawsuit filed by the carrier’s pilots union to temporarily block the company from carrying out its COVID-19 vaccine mandate, arguing the order would put its business, customers, and employees at risk.
Earlier this month, the Southwest Airlines Pilots Association (SWAPA) filed a lawsuit to prevent the carrier from mandating that all its workers get vaccinated. The union asserts that Southwest, which last week experienced thousands of flight cancellations and delays, illegally changed work rules instead of negotiating with them.
“The injunction that SWAPA seeks is extraordinary,” Southwest’s lawyers said in its court filing, responding to the union’s suit, Bloomberg reported. It further argued that a ruling against Southwest would potentially cause the cancellation of Southwest’s contracts with the federal government, creating “substantial harm” to its businesses and its employees, including the pilots.
In early October, Southwest said that its 56,000 workers, including pilots, have to get vaccinated against COVID-19 by Dec. 8 under federal rules and cited President Joe Biden’s Sept. 9 announcement that federal workers and contractors need to get the shot unless they’re granted a medical or religious exemption. Southwest said it has to require federal vaccines because the airline is a federal contractor that flies government cargo and employees, and provides it with other services.
But SWAPA said that the vaccine mandate “unlawfully imposes new conditions of employment and the new policy threatens termination of any pilot,” adding that COVID-19 vaccines pose a unique risk to pilots. Any adverse reaction, the union argued, could affect a pilot’s ability to clear the stringent medical standards required to fly an airplane. Meanwhile, under Federal Aviation Administration requirements, pilots can’t work for 48 hours after getting vaccinations.
Other than the vaccine mandate, SWAPA also wants the court to issue an injunction against COVID-19 quarantine rules for pilots. The vaccine mandate and quarantine rules, the union’s lawyers argued, violate provisions under the Railway Labor Act, which governs relations between airlines and unions.
In a statement on SWAPA’s website, its leadership said the union “is not anti-vaccination, but we do believe that, under all circumstances, it is our role to represent the health and safety of our Pilots and bring their concerns to the company.” Representatives of SWAPA didn’t immediately respond to a request by The Epoch Times for comment on the recent Southwest filing.
Amid widespread Southwest cancellations early last week, Chief Executive Gary Kelly denied that the flight disruptions were caused by pilot sickouts or protests over the vaccine mandate. In an interview with CNBC on Oct. 12, Kelly criticized the Biden-directed vaccine mandate but suggested his company would adhere to them.
“I’ve never been in favor of corporations imposing that kind of a mandate. I’m not in favor of that. Never have been,” Kelly said. “But the executive order from President Biden mandates that all federal employees and then all federal contractors, which covers all the major airlines, have to have a [vaccine] mandate … in place by Dec. 8, so we’re working through that.”
The case is Southwest Airlines Pilots Association v. Southwest Airlines Co., 3:21-cv-02065-M, filed in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas in Dallas.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/il-governor-jb-pritzker-delays-covid-vaccine-deadline-state-workers
All I care about is the science, educating people with accurate facts and having them make the right choices for them, their families and the country in choosing all the best treatments.
Unfortunately, on this issue, there are 2 sides based on politics and if those on one side are not allowed to use or promote the life saving treatments from the other side.......you must vilify those treatments BECAUSE THEY CAME FROM THE OTHER POLITICAL SIDE.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Group 1 in this case, hangs their hat on all these treatments and in many cases bashes the vaccine because showing the truth about how effective and safe the vaccine is......would mean they have no justification for telling people they have the right to reject the vaccine.
Best Treatments for COVID(outside of the vaccine)!
12 responses |
Started by metmike - Sept. 26, 2021, 9:28 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/75440/
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ivermectin/how to get to the truth
By metmike - Sept. 26, 2021, 8:55 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/74636/#75439
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Group 2 puts everything on recommending this treatment.......the vaccine and discourages some of the treatments from side 1 that work, like Ivermectin.
Profound irrefutable proof from empirical data/observations for how well vaccines protect from severe cases and death:
With regards to COVID and the vaccine........the most important thing is the empirical data and observations....NOT models.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/75252/#75261
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/75252/#75262
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Both of them agree on monoclonal antibody infusions and a few other things but mostly disagree on some key elements to treatments that work the best from the other side.
It's nuts.
It would be like farming having this battle about corn production.
Famers group 1 would say that providing fertilizer is essential for the best yields but water isn't important and in many cases, advise farmer to not irrigate with water....the most extreme in the group would be posting anti water disinformation to convince farmers that water is bad for corn because group 2 is stating that water is the most important.
Farmers from group 2 would say that water is the most important element for maximizing crop yields and that fertilizer is not as important and they downplay underemphasize the importance of fertilizer, just telling farmers that as long as their corn is getting plenty of water, they don't need to fertilize.
Neither side will tell farmers that both fertilizer and water are both very important because they have to vilify the thing that the other side recommends.
This is what we are doing with the COVID vaccine. Both sides bash what the other side recommends BECAUSE the other side recommends it.
Another dead horse? Really ... ?
Thanks kris................I totally get that!
It's not like COVID is gone and the vaccination is no longer relevant.
If anything, it's the top news story on many days.
I'm just reporting the latest news at the top and following up with clarity on the science for the many people who were not with us last month for instance.
Personally, I'd prefer to discuss almost anything but COVID and the vaccine and will try to minimize it.
Sorry kris,
I'll try to just send the stories which are headline news and try to minimize personal comments.
Australian politician on Cruz, vaccines: 'We don't need your lectures, thanks mate'
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/577228-australian-politician-on-cruz-vaccines-we-dont-need-your-lectures-mate
The chief minister of an Australian territory is hitting back at Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) after he criticized a new wide-ranging vaccine mandate there.
“We don’t need your lectures, thanks mate,” tweeted Michael Gunner, chief minister of Australia’s Northern Territory.
The exchange began when Cruz tweeted in response to a video of Gunner announcing a mandate in the territory requiring workers who interact with the public, like teachers or retail workers, to be vaccinated against COVID-19.
“I love the Aussies,” Cruz tweeted. “Their history of rugged independence is legendary; I’ve always said Australia is the Texas of the Pacific. The Covid tyranny of their current government is disgraceful & sad. Individual liberty matters.I stand with the people of #Australia.”
Gunner responded with his own message on Twitter.
“Nearly 70,000 Texans have tragically died from COVID. There have been zero deaths in the Territory. Did you know that?” he wrote.
“You know nothing about us,” he added. “And if you stand against a life-saving vaccine, then you sure as hell don't stand with Australia. I love Texas (go Longhorns), but when it comes to COVID, I'm glad we're nothing like you.”
The exchange highlights the debate playing out on the international stage over vaccine mandates. Republicans, including Cruz, have attacked President Biden for a regulation in the U.S. requiring that businesses with 100 or more workers ensure their employees are vaccinated or get tested weekly.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) issued an executive order seeking to block businesses in his state from imposing vaccine mandates.
"The federal government has no authority to force businesses in Texas and across the country to mandate their employees get vaccinated,” Cruz said in a statement last month. “American businesses are still recovering from this past year and a half. It is cruel and burdensome to impose this authoritarian mandate.”
"While I support the vaccine and have received it, Americans have the right to exercise personal choice when it comes to their health,” he said.
I just took a Covid antibodies test and already got my results today:
1. To review: At 6 months after getting Covid and just before getting my first shot, I had received this result from natural immunity (464) keeping in mind that negative is less than 0.8:
| SARS-CoV-2 Semi-Quant Total Ab | 464.0 | U/mL | <0.8 |
2. Today's result is 9 months after getting Covid, 3.5 months after the first shot, and 3 months after the 2nd shot. It is the same test done by the same lab. It shows a major boost in antibodies that exceeds the top of the scale (over 2,500) and is at a minimum over 5 times the antibodies that I had just before the first shot:
| SARS-CoV-2 Semi-Quant Total Ab | >2500.0 |
so will you get the booster? Larry
I don’t see a point in it for me. Maybe I’ll retest my antibodies well into 2022 and then see.
Vaccines work.........doesn't matter
What exactly does not matter MM? Be clear and concise.
TIA
BTW.. The statement you appeared to dodge.
Do you agree with the statement "It can't be an infringement on your rights if it's for your own good"? Sure sounds that way and totalitarians have used language like that for centuries.
BTW, I am all for the vax. My wife and I have both gotten them and will likely get a booster soon. I think everyone should do the same.
But the difference between us, and ITS HUGE. is that I don't believe that I have the right to force anyone else to get the vaccine. Especially for a virus with a 99+% survival rate and a well defined risk group.
Tim,
You asked the same thing on the other thread, so you must be really wanting to press the issue and question and I'm more than happy to oblige with the facts for you........which are the exact same for both threads.
I'll just copy what was stated at the other thread.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/76747/#76822
Just got back from being a DJ at a wedding reception.
"Especially for a virus with a 99+% survival rate"
Tim,
I don't know why you keep reporting that incorrect information. Is it to try to justify the position?
Maybe part of your opinion is based on not realizing how bad COVID really is.
The number of cases has been 45,655,635
The number of deaths has been 740,348.
So 1.6% of people that got COVID died, almost double what you keep claiming. But the deaths are only the worst end post.
Apparently you are totally oblivious to the huge problem called "long COVID".
This is by far the biggest problem, which is occurring for many millions of people seriously afflicted, some permanently damaged with long COVID.
Let me help you out with the science/data. This was as of late August, so the numbers are even higher now.
About 11.1 million Americans are living with long COVID-19, according to new estimates from The American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.
Long COVID-19, or persistent symptoms up to six months after being cleared of the illness, affects around 30 percent of individuals who had COVID-19, according to two recent publications from the Journal of the American Medical Association. Symptoms of long COVID-19 are varied and may include neurological challenges, cognitive problems, shortness of breath, fatigue, pain and mobility issues.
metmike: So please stop stating that 99%+ of people survive, which is not accurate and please stop ignoring the 30% of people that are still sick for up to 6 months, some unable to function normally and some that are sick longer than that. This adds up to an additional 11 million+ Americans that have their health seriously messed up for a very long period from having COVID.
Let's go ahead then and use your criteria of how many people are seriously affected to determine whether it's worth the inconvenience of getting 2 low risk shots.....except we'll use the REAL numbers, not your fake numbers.
Deaths =1.6%
Long COVID = 34%
Total =35.6% and now almost 12,000,000 people.
The best way to lower those numbers?
Get vaccinated.
Those are the facts.
Are those long COVID numbers too high?
Actually the latest science/studies say they are much higher than that, see this one below.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/10/211013114112.htm
The investigators noted several trends among survivors, such as:
"These findings confirm what many health care workers and COVID-19 survivors have been claiming, namely, that adverse health effects from COVID-19 can linger," said co-lead investigator Vernon Chinchilli, chair of the Department of Public Health Sciences. "Although previous studies have examined the prevalence of long COVID symptoms among patients, this study examined a larger population, including people in high-, middle- and low-income countries, and examined many more symptoms. Therefore, we believe our findings are quite robust given the available data."
"The burden of poor health in COVID-19 survivors is overwhelming," said co-lead investigator Dr. Paddy Ssentongo, assistant professor at the Penn State Center for Neural Engineering. "Among these are the mental health disorders. One's battle with COVID doesn't end with recovery from the acute infection. Vaccination is our best ally to prevent getting sick from COVID-19 and to reduce the chance of long-COVID even in the presence of a breakthrough infection."
Tim,
Now that you know the actual facts, how can you continue to justify, using a very wrong fact that suggests that COVID only has a major impact on less than 1% of people that get it?
It's actually more than 35 times greater than that..................and that was using the more conservative number from a couple of months ago.
The 2nd study just out, which may actually be the better one, found it to be more than 50 times that.
Was that study reliable or did I cherry pick to find something that showed what I wanted to show? They used data from 57 reports to compile a very compresensive, objective analysis......the complete opposite of finding 1 outlier study that has an individual result. This is rock solid authenic science.
Here's their explanation: "The researchers conducted a systematic review of 57 reports that included data from 250,351 unvaccinated adults and children who were diagnosed with COVID-19 from December 2019 through March 2021."
I actually have more but let's just address this part of it first.
Looking forward to your response.