quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
Is this the first time people might be wondering if she is a Super Spreader?

I think she is an example of the vaccinated are spreading it as much or more than the unvaccinated.

They bought into the b.s. that if they're vaccinated and wear a mask they are in no danger of getting it or transmitting it so they go about their life like nothing is going on.

It's shocking how many people still believe this.

I got the first two jabs and the only reason is that If I do get Covid I hope it lessons the affects of it and that's it.

I'm not getting a booster because the variants already give you milder affects than the original.

COVID just wanted to date her...

The C-O-V-I-D
Got in my bod-ee
Cause it wanna date me

quote:

Originally posted by 1s1k:
I think she is an example of the vaccinated are spreading it as much or more than the unvaccinated.

Well, on that note, let's not leave out the contemptible douchebag Geraldo Rivera who also recently caught the Chinese virus in the last few days.

Here's what he's been saying about the unvaccinated:

From Washington state:

https://justthenews.com/nation...legislative-traction

quote:

Push to limit Washington state governor's emergency powers gains legislative traction
There are bipartisan indications that lawmakers may finally move to rein in the governor.

Washington state Gov. Jay Inslee has exercised pandemic-related state of emergency powers for 678 days now.

In the lead-up to Monday’s convening of the 2022 legislative session, there are bipartisan indications that lawmakers may finally move to rein in the governor’s emergency powers.

“I have a feeling that the theme of this year’s session is going to be ‘seeking balance,’” House Speaker Laurie Jinkins, D-Tacoma, said at Thursday’s Seattle CityClub legislative preview. “And so, I think that’s what we’ll be trying to do. I expect that we’ll hear some bills on oversight of emergency powers and things like that.”

Her comments came after House Minority Leader J.T. Wilcox, R-Yelm, sent a letter to Jinkins on Wednesday urging passage of new bipartisan emergency powers legislation, House Bill 1772, during the 2022 legislative session.

HB 1772 essentially requires legislative involvement in any long-lasting state of emergency, defined as more than 60 days.

Among the bill’s co-sponsors is Rep. Mike Chapman, D-Port Angeles, one of the panelists at Thursday’s Solution Summit event on emergency powers reform held by the Washington Policy Center (WPC).

“The reason I co-sponsored HB 1772 is that whether one agrees with the governor’s emergency powers decisions or not, we still need three effective co-equal branches of government with appropriate checks and balances,” Chapman told Jason Mercier, WPC’s director of the Center for Government Reform, after the panel discussion.

Some of the specific provisions of HB 1722 include:

The legislature is allowed to pass a concurrent resolution declaring the termination of a state of emergency.During a state of emergency, the governor or legislature may call a special session, consistent with the state constitution's guidelines, to vote on a concurrent resolution to extend a state of emergency.If the legislature is not in session, the state of emergency may also be terminated in writing by unanimous agreement of all four leaders in the House and Senate – that is, the majority leader of the Senate’s largest caucus, the minority leader of the Senate’s second-largest caucus, the speaker of the House, and the minority leader of the House’s second-largest caucus.The state of emergency, unless extended by the legislature by a concurrent resolution, will be terminated 60 days after being signed by the governor.The governor is prohibited from reinstating the same or substantively similar state of emergency when the original has expired.

On Feb. 29, 2020, Inslee declared a statewide emergency in response to the spread of COVID-19 under the Emergency Powers Act of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 43.06.220. Since then, he has issued scores of additional proclamations ranging from stay-at-home orders to school closures to a moratorium on evictions to a vaccine mandate.

The Governor’s Office was noncommittal on the nascent legislation.

“Regarding HB 1722, we need time to review and consider the proposal, so we haven’t taken a position on it yet,” Inslee spokesperson Tara Lee said in an email response to The Center Square.

Aware that last year’s bipartisan emergency powers legislation went nowhere in the legislature, Mercier managed to retain some hope lawmakers would act this year to limit Inslee’s governing by emergency declarations, describing his position as “cautiously optimistic.”

Meanwhile, Washington State Board of Health is going to be meeting next week. The agenda? This bit of legislation:
https://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/de...spx?cite=246-100-040

Of note:

quote:

Procedures for isolation or quarantine.
(1) At his or her sole discretion, a local health officer may issue an emergency detention order causing a person or group of persons to be immediately detained for purposes of isolation or quarantine in accordance with subsection (3) of this section, or may petition the superior court ex parte for an order to take the person or group of persons into involuntary detention for purposes of isolation or quarantine in accordance with subsection (4) of this section, provided that he or she:
(a) Has first made reasonable efforts, which shall be documented, to obtain voluntary compliance with requests for medical examination, testing, treatment, counseling, vaccination, decontamination of persons or animals, isolation, quarantine, and inspection and closure of facilities, or has determined in his or her professional judgment that seeking voluntary compliance would create a risk of serious harm; and
(b) Has reason to believe that the person or group of persons is, or is suspected to be, infected with, exposed to, or contaminated with a communicable disease or chemical, biological, or radiological agent that could spread to or contaminate others if remedial action is not taken; and
(c) Has reason to believe that the person or group of persons would pose a serious and imminent risk to the health and safety of others if not detained for purposes of isolation or quarantine.
(2) A local health officer may invoke the powers of police officers, sheriffs, constables, and all other officers and employees of any political subdivisions within the jurisdiction of the health department to enforce immediately orders given to effectuate the purposes of this section in accordance with the provisions of RCW 43.20.050(4) and 70.05.120.

Of course, this is causing a bit of a stir, to which they've stated:

quote:

When discussing the second issue, misinformation abounds about forced detainment and quarantine of people with COVID or those who refuse to get tested. However, the Board is not addressing COVID in regards to this Chapter.

https://www.khq.com/news/misin...7e-cfb334712298.html

Well, shit. That's not what that reads like to me.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by 1s1k:
I think she is an example of the vaccinated are spreading it as much or more than the unvaccinated.

Well, on that note, let's not leave out the contemptible douchebag Geraldo Rivera who also recently caught the Chinese virus in the last few days.

Here's what he's been saying about the unvaccinated:

That's what I don't get about the people that think the unvaccinated are evil. He got Covid despite being vaccinated and just on numbers alone he probably got it from someone that is also vaccinated.

It's not like everyone thought in the beginning that if you get vaccinated it dies with you. No you can get it and transmit it weather or not you are vaccinated.

quote:

Originally posted by Graniteguy:
Well - I guess I rather have an infected nurse treating me vs. an unvaccinated nurse.

The stupid bar just got raised another notch.

Yep. Have we finally reached maximum trajectory when it comes to mental retardation over this issue? The stupid just never seems to stop or slow down.

What's the most dangerous thing in the world?

The Legal and Moral Morass of Mandatory Vaccination

The COVID vaccines are experimental drugs. Even if the FDA were still functioning as intended and serving a productive role in protecting the public from dangerous products, these drugs are not approved. It is true that the FDA, after putting aside its normal procedures intended to better ensure safety, has approved a version of the vaccines known as COMIRNATY. But as all public health authorities admit, COMIRNATY is not available anywhere. The drug companies cannot accept any liability for the damages their products are causing, because they know full well they would be bankrupted. A fully approved drug would not have the complete liability protection that a drug under Emergency Use Authorization has. That there is an approved version means that under the law, the EUA must be pulled. This is just another law not being followed due to this "emergency." Without the protection of the EUA, there would be no liability protection for the manufacturers. The upshot is that there are no available fully approved COVID vaccines.

That attempting to force me to take experimental drugs against my will is a violation of local, state, and federal law, everything from the state and local Human Rights Codes, to the federal ADA, and a blatant violation of my constitutional civil rights, should give you pause in attempting to deny me my assertion of this religious objection. Retaliating, or discriminating against me in any way, making it impossible or just difficult for me to do my job, is blatantly illegal, not to mention morally wrong.

Furthermore, the bedrock of modern medicine is informed consent as an ethical principle, and I believe in ethics. I am now informed about the COVID vaccines. I do not consent.

The right to refuse medical treatment was established in the internationally recognized medical code of ethics established in the Nuremberg Code of 1947. As a response to crimes against humanity of precisely this kind perpetrated by the Nazis, the Code established that every person must "be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior forms of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision."

Even if these drugs truly functioned as a therapeutic for COVID, it is a legal and moral fact that our society has never compelled treatment. Well, unless you consider and support the infamous Buck v. Bell case where the Supreme Court sanctioned forced sterilization. Or if you view the Tuskegee experiment and the like as good things. But with those notable ignoble exceptions, we have had the right to turn down "care." This is evident in the healthcare directives people painstakingly create to make sure their intentions for treatment are honored even in extreme conditions -- in our right to refuse treatment in an emergency room. And in the millions of prescriptions that go unfilled each year. Why are these COVID vaccines any different?

I don't understand why I am being compelled to discuss my personal, private medical situation with my employer. It is in fact a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the ADA, for one thing, but here we are. The ADA prohibits employers from making invasive inquiries about an employee's medical status, including questions about diseases and treatments for those diseases. The only exception is if the information is both job-related and necessary. There is no evidence that vaccination status has any positive impact on preventing the spread of respiratory disease in the workplace. COVID is not any more of a threat than is the flu. It is not necessary.

The best and only reasonable mitigant is requiring workers to stay home if they are symptomatic or feel ill. Treating an employee differently based on the employer's belief that the employee's medical condition (like being unvaccinated) is an impairment is discrimination based on a perceived medical disability. The employer must have proof that it cannot keep the employee, even with reasonable accommodations, before any adverse action can be taken. If an employer asserts that to be the case, they must prove with scientific evidence (not press releases from the CDC) that the employee poses material harm that no reasonable accommodation could mitigate. No court has yet found the scientific evidence in favor of discrimination to be compelling.

One day, we will have courts and government officials that will protect our constitutional rights again. That will pursue justice and compensation for the evils being done during this extraordinary period. In the America I've known to this point, one did not need to explain one's deep religious convictions to one's employer for their review and sign-off. At some point, when the fever passes, people and organizations will be held to account. In prior cases concerning HIV and AIDS, when employers discriminated against employees based on their perceived dangerousness, the employers ended up paying millions in legal fees, damages, and fines.

Finally, and to put it all together, I object on the moral grounds that my personal bodily autonomy is sacrosanct and cannot be violated by my employer. To accept the idea that my employer can determine what I am to put into my body is to accept the idea that my employer can tell me what to do with my body, which in practical terms means that my employer owns my body while I am employed. I refuse to accept that premise. I refuse to accept the yoke of slavery. In America, it is astonishing that I would have to assert that in this day and age, generations removed from the Civil War.

These are my sincerely held beliefs. I do not submit to taking these drugs.

https://www.americanthinker.co...ory_vaccination.html

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
What's the most dangerous thing in the world?

Government?

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
What's the most dangerous thing in the world?

Stupidity.

The most dangerous thing in the world is a man with nothing to lose.

The whole " I got all my shots but still got Covid. That made it less serious" is absolute fail.
Analogy: You go to your Doctor to get Viagra. He prescribes you a pill that gives you a chubby but it only lasts 1 minute. Your problem is now "less serious"!

A "chubby" I haven't heard that in decades.

Biden’s Vaccine Mandate Is Outrageously Unconstitutional. Why Couldn’t Lawyers Make That Argument To The Supreme Court?

Truly, was it too much to ask for a defense of limited government, separation of powers, and federalism?

Margot Cleveland

All the petitioners needed was for the Supreme Court to enter a stay to prevent the Occupational Safety and Health Administration vaccination rule from taking effect, but, truly, was it too much to ask for a defense of limited government, separation of powers, and federalism?

Apparently so, because on Friday, over more than two hours of argument in National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor, lawyers pushing the Supreme Court to delay the regulation circled and sidled rather than state clearly that the rule, OSHA, the Biden administration, and the entire federal government represented a mockery of our constitutional order.

On November 5, 2021, OSHA issued the rule under review, framing it as an “Emergency Temporary Standard” or ETS. The ETS required all employers of 100 or more employees to “develop, implement, and enforce a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy,” which required employees to either be fully vaccinated or submit to weekly COVID-19 testing and to wear face coverings at work.

Congress authorized OSHA to issue “an emergency temporary standard to take immediate effect,” and without the traditional notice-and-comment process, if it “determines (A) that employees are exposed to grave danger from exposure to substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful or from new hazards, and (B) that such emergency standard is necessary to protect employees from such danger.”
Massive Overreach Immediately Challenged in Court

The ETS was immediately challenged by individual Americans, religious groups, covered employers, states, and trade organizations, with the cases filed directly in federal courts of appeals throughout the country, bypassing the federal trial courts pursuant to the statute that authorized emergency rules.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals acted first, issuing a stay on November 6, 2021, preventing enforcement of the rule pending briefing. Less than a week later, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit—consisting of Ronald Reagan appointee Judge Edith Jones and two Donald Trump appointees, Judges Kyle Duncan and Kurt Engelhardt—issued an opinion holding that the ETS remain stayed “pending adequate judicial review” of the lawsuit challenging the OSHA rule.

The 21-page opinion, authored by Judge Engelhardt, analyzed the request for a stay and concluded that, for numerous reasons, the petitioners had a strong likelihood to succeed on the merits of their challenge and that without a stay the businesses and other petitioners would suffer irreparable injury.

Shortly after the Fifth Circuit issued its decision, pursuant to the procedures controlling when multiple lawsuits are filed challenging an ETS, all of the cases throughout the various federal circuits were consolidated and assigned by lottery to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Then, on December 17, 2021, the Sixth Circuit vacated the stay entered by the Fifth Circuit.
Sixth Circuit Deadlocks

Judge Jane Stranch, a Barack Obama appointee, authored the decision for the three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit, which Judge Julia Gibbons, a G.W. Bush appointee, joined. Trump-appointee Judge Joan Larsen dissented from the decision, concisely capturing her concern with this opening line: “As the Supreme Court has very recently reminded us, ‘our system does not permit agencies to act unlawfully even in pursuit of desirable ends.’”

Two days before the Sixth Circuit removed the stay, thereby setting the ETS to go into effect this month, the federal appellate court denied a request by the challengers of the OSHA rule for the court to hear the case initially en banc, or as a full court. To obtain en banc review, a majority of the active judges on the Sixth Circuit needed to vote for the full court to decide the case together, but the 16-member court deadlocked 8-8, leaving the three-judge panel in charge.

In voting to hear the request for a stay of the ETS en banc in the Sixth Circuit, Judge John Bush, a Trump appointee, opened with the closer: “Whether it uses a clear statement or not, Congress likely has no authority under the Commerce Clause to impose, much less to delegate the imposition of, a de facto national vaccine mandate upon the American public. Such claimed authority runs contrary to the text and structure of the Constitution and historical practice. The regulation of health and safety through compulsory vaccination is a traditional prerogative of the states—not the domain of Congress and certainly not fodder for the diktat of a federal administrative agency.”
Sidelining the Constitution

With all of the ammunition provided by the dissenting judges in the Sixth Circuit, as well as the Fifth Circuit’s original opinion entering the stay, one would think that when the Supreme Court fast-tracked the case for oral argument, the attorneys seeking the stay would stress the grave attack the ETS represents to our constitutional republic. But they didn’t.

Instead, Scott Keller, counsel for the National Federation of Independent Business, argued “OSHA’s economy-wide one-size-fits-all mandate covering 84 million Americans is not a necessary, indispensable use of OSHA’s extraordinary emergency power which this Court has recognized is narrowly circumscribed.”

Likewise, Benjamin Flowers, the solicitor general of Ohio, arguing on behalf of the slew of states that joined in challenging the ETS, stressed “so sweeping a rule [as the vaccine mandate] is not necessary to protect employees from a grave danger as the emergency provision requires.”

Throughout the argument, Keller and Flowers also focused on the so-called “major questions” doctrine, which stems from a series of Supreme Court cases that stressed that if an agency’s regulatory action “brings about an enormous and transformative expansion in regulatory authority,” Congress must speak clearly that “it wishes to assign to an agency decisions [such issues] of vast ‘economic and political significance.”

The petitioners weren’t wrong. The OSHA rule, which is, in essence, a vaccine mandate given the shortage of tests and the federal government’s decision to force employees to pay for the cost of testing, is not “necessary” to protect employees from a “grave danger” for many reasons.
This Is Obviously Unconstitutional

First, COVID is only a grave danger to a small segment of society, while the ETS adopts the de facto vaccine mandate for all employers of 100 or more employees. The ETS also makes no distinction between employers where working conditions create a higher risk of COVID infection from those facilities where employees have limited risk. Nor, after two years of COVID, with OSHA waiting that time period to issue the ETS and the latest mutation less severe than the former ones, does the ETS fit within the concept of an “emergency” standard.

Also, far from providing the OSHA clear authority to mandate vaccinations (or a weekly medical test) in response to a virus such as COVID, the statute authorizing OSHA to issue an ETS speaks of grave dangers “from exposure to substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful or from new hazards.” Thus, the major question doctrine supports the petitioners’ challenge to the ETS and their request for a stay.

Yes, advocates must be pragmatists, and the petitioners’ attorneys didn’t need a home run; they just needed a rain delay. But so much more could have been said, and indeed needed to be said—and forcefully so—about limited powers, federalism, and separation of powers. Yet in their desire to win the stay, there was barely any mention of these important constitutional principles.
Major Opportunity Lost

Consider this notable exchange between Ohio’s top attorney and Justice Sotomayor.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: “So, if it’s within the police power to protect the health and welfare of workers, you seem to be saying the states can do it, but you’re saying the federal government can’t even though it’s facing the same crisis in interstate commerce that states are facing within their own borders. I — I’m not sure I understand the distinction why the states would have the power but the federal government wouldn’t.”

MR. FLOWERS: “The federal government has no police power, if we’re asking about that.”

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: “Oh, it does have power with respect to protecting the health and safety of workers. We have — we have — accept the constitutionality of OSHA.”

MR. FLOWERS: “Yes. I took you to be asking if they had a police power to protect public health. They — they absolutely have the –”

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: “No, they have a police power to protect workers.”

MR. FLOWERS: “I would not call it a police power. I think the Commerce Clause power allows them to address health.”

“I would not call it a police power” is as much as the Ohio solicitor general could muster for a pushback. But Congress has no “police power” no matter what it is called, and the federal government cannot “pretextually relabel” a federal de facto vaccination mandate “commerce” to gain what is, in effect, a novel police power of the national government.

The breadth of the OSHA rule and its effects on two-thirds of private businesses also threatens the “system of government ordered by the Constitution,” that gave all legislative powers to Congress. The resulting “nondelegation doctrine constrains Congress’s ability to delegate its legislative authority to executive agencies.”

Yet when provided an opportunity to hammer these points, Flowers served up the vanilla point “that although our non-delegation doctrine is not especially robust today, there are limits on the amount of authority that Congress can give away.”

The justices—and Americans—needed to hear these points because COVID has become both the excuse and the case study for authoritarianism. And from OSHA’s most recent rule, we might divine the civil corollary to the “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime,” motto, and it seems to be, “Provide me a public interest, and I’ll find the power.”

Or, elsewise said, “Cut me a mouse hole, and I’ll squeeze in an elephant.”

https://thefederalist.com/2022...o-the-supreme-court/

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
AOC picks up COVID as a souvenir of her trip to Florida. Oops. Can't wait to she she spins it.

Covid wanted to date her...

Just heard from the guy who told me they decided not to have me join the band because I’m “unvaccinated.” Good-hearted man, but a bit misguided. He just couldn’t understand why someone would choose not to. Well, he has covid. Had what he thought was a cold that he got over about a week ago, then he started feeling shitty again. “Those tests suck.” I asked if he meant accuracy or the swab. Accuracy. I mentioned the CDC recently admitted they couldn’t tell the difference between flu and Covid, and the member here a few pages back with multiple false negative tests in a house with three adults who tested positive. He stopped replying.

I’m fighting the schadenfreude like a boner in ninth grade Spanish class with Ms. Hotstuff… and having about the same degree of success.

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
AOC picks up COVID as a souvenir of her trip to Florida. Oops. Can't wait to she she spins it.

Covid wanted to date her...

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but I wouldn't put it past AOC, and the other whack job Dems to fake a positive covid test, and then make a big deal about how Desantis/FL covid policies are bad. Even IF they do actually have covid, there's going to be alot of drama.

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:
Just heard from the guy who told me they decided not to have me join the band because I’m “unvaccinated.” Good-hearted man, but a bit misguided. He just couldn’t understand why someone would choose not to. Well, he has covid. Had what he thought was a cold that he got over about a week ago, then he started feeling shitty again. “Those tests suck.” I asked if he meant accuracy or the swab. Accuracy. I mentioned the CDC recently admitted they couldn’t tell the difference between flu and Covid, and the member here a few pages back with multiple false negative tests in a house with three adults who tested positive. He stopped replying.

I’m fighting the schadenfreude like a boner in ninth grade Spanish class with Ms. Hotstuff… and having about the same degree of success.

My sister was telling me over the weekend that friends of hers throw a big Christmas party every year where everyone dresses in PJ's and they do a lot of drinking and having a good time. The party host informed her she wasn't allowed to attend this year because she was unvaccinated (her husband is I believe). They both said "the hell with them then!".

She found out that EVERY PERSON who went to that party ended up with a nice case of Covid...

The biggest casualty of this goddam pandemic is going to be friendships

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:
I mentioned the CDC recently admitted they couldn’t tell the difference between flu and Covid, ...

Except that's not what the CDC said. Poor wording on their part, but what they were saying was they wanted a new test that could detect both from one swab, rather than people having to be swabbed, separately, for each.

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:
... and the member here a few pages back with multiple false negative tests in a house with three adults who tested positive.

Were they rapid tests? Those are known to produce a relatively high rate of false negatives. That's why the urgent care clinic to which my wife and I went for tests swabbed us for both rapid and PCR tests on the same visit.

As for the unvaccinated Nazis: Screw 'em.