quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
Germany Starts Rolling out a Digital EU Vaccination Pass

Here we go, Germany is requiring papers again. The irony!

This just tells me that if you live in a larger, Democrat controlled city, you are more likely to take the jab:

These cities have reached Biden's 70% vaccination goal -- and beyond

Seattle has become the first U.S. city to fully vaccinate 70% of eligible residents.

In May, President Joe Biden set a goal for 70% of U.S. adults to receive at lease one dose of the vaccine by July 4 in the sprint to end the coronavirus crisis.

Mayor Jenny A. Durkan announced Wednesday that Seattle went a step further and became the first “major American city” to hit that percent with fully vaccinated residents, also adding that 78% of Seattle's population aged 12 and older have received their first dose of the shot.

"It would not have been possible without our residents’ commitment to protecting themselves, their loved ones, and our entire community," she said in a statement.


Meanwhile, Denver has crossed the milestone of administering at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine to 70% of its population.

Denver passed the 70% threshold Wednesday morning, and a total of 61.2% of eligible residents aged 12 and older are fully vaccinated, according to the Denver Department of Public Health & Environment. Mayor Michael B. Hancock said in a statement that thanks to the vaccination rate, "We've been able to responsibly reopen our city."

MORE: Biden announces US to donate 500M vaccine doses in show of American leadership

El Paso, Texas has also passed the milestone, with 72% of the county's eligible population aged 12 and up receiving at least one dose of the vaccine, according to the the state's vaccine dashboard.

Some of the nation's largest cities, including San Francisco, San Jose and Boston, are also racing toward the threshold.



San Francisco is one of the cities with the most robust vaccination efforts, with 69% of the population 12 and older fully vaccinated and 79% with at least one dose, according to the city's COVID-19 tracker.

Other cities have also surpassed -- or are nearing -- Biden's 70% mark.
MORE: Biden lays out plan for shots in arms of 70% of Americans by July 4

In Santa Clara County, California, which includes the city of San Jose, 68% of residents 12 and older are fully vaccinated, and 79% of residents are partially vaccinated, per county data. San Diego County has partially vaccinated 75% of its population aged 12 and up, and in Los Angeles County 64.9% of residents are partially vaccinated.

In Boston, 62.1% of the population 12 and older is partially vaccinated. In Multnomah County, Oregon, which includes Portland, 69.7% of the population 16 and older have received at least one dose of the vaccine, per county data.

Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser announced Thursday the nation's capital is nearing the goal of having 70% of adults vaccinated -- with 68.3% of residents 18 and older inoculated -- as D.C. is set to fully reopen with no restrictions Friday, according to its vaccine tracker.

So far, 13 states have reached 70% of adult residents receiving at least one dose. They are: Pennsylvania, Vermont, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, New Jersey, Rhode Island, New Mexico, Washington, Maryland and California.

When it comes to states, Vermont is leading the nation in getting shots into the arms of its residents, with 54% of the state fully vaccinated, followed by Massachusetts at 53.18%, Connecticut at 51.06% and Maine at 49.83%. Rhode Island and New Hampshire follow behind, according to data from John Hopkins. That data reports Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi ranking the lowest among all states in percentage of fully vaccinated residents.

Nationally, 42.5% of the U.S. population is fully vaccinated, and 51.8% has received at least one dose, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data.

About 15.5 million unvaccinated adults need to receive at least one dose in the next four weeks in order to reach Biden's 70% goal, the Associated Press reported.

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/...al/story?id=78195531

Sickening. The illness is in full decline (it was our immune systems that obtained here immunity in the first place) and the left is failing to follow the science in spectacular fashion by continuing to mandate the snake oil.

It’s being used as a indicator as to what percentage of the population is malleable. If they can hit 70% that leaves only 30% who may be resistant to desired behaviors later on.

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:
Sickening. The illness is in full decline (it was our immune systems that obtained here immunity in the first place) and the left is failing to follow the science in spectacular fashion by continuing to mandate the snake oil.

Snake oil would be safer

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
Germany Starts Rolling out a Digital EU Vaccination Pass

[snip]

“By doing so, we in the European Union are setting a cross-border standard that doesn’t exist elsewhere in the world yet,” he said, ...[snip]

Few things leftists do and say these days surprises me anymore, but, occasionally, they still manage it. This is one such occasion. The fact a German can say such a thing and not realize what he's saying...

I'd like to see 2 sets of charts:

1. Vac rate in blue cities (done above) and infection rate trends (by week? month?) from 01/20 through now.

2. Same for clearly red dominated cities (or NA?)

If not by city, then perhaps state level comparing obviously blue vs obviously red states?

Would love to see data where vaccine and masks and such were NOT used but wuflu was treated with ivermectin or something. Seems like we should have some data along those lines now.

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:

quote:

Originally posted by leavemebe:
For those facing forced vaccination to keep your job or career consider this letter written by a US lawyer and explore it with your own legal counsel:

https://vivabarneslaw.locals.c...loyee-letter-example

snip...

For the love of all that is holy, don't rely on ANYTHING in that letter. There is a lot of spectacularly bad advice in there.

Thanks for the input. Can you specify what "spectacularly bad advice" you read in the letter?

I took a quick look at the citations given, looked at CDC guidance, HIPAA, the ADA, the EEOC, and the website where the letter was posted.

First, Robert Barns who runs the site clearly states that he is not a lawyer. Second, he doesn't identify who sent him the letter, and in fact states he doesn't know who wrote it. Third, many of the sources cited in the letter are either misquoted, misunderstood, simply don't apply, or are irrelevant.

I am not specifically an HR or disability lawyer, I don't want to get into an argument over the information presented, and I am unwilling to spend the hours of research it would take to specifically refute or properly clarify every point in the letter. However, I can tell you that it is seriously lacking in context, accuracy and relevancy to the issue of whether or not an employer can require (or fire if refused) an employee to get vaccinated as a condition of employment. Most importantly, no court, state or federal, that I was able to find has yet ruled on a case considering these issues. I don't want to speculate how such a case would turn out, but I very much doubt it would be along the lines asserted in that letter.

The poster who suggested that it reads like a sovereign citizen declaration where statements facially make sense but are cobbled together with half truths and inaccurate assertions to make a flawed case is not far off the mark.

In short, don't rely on it.

Listen to Artie, he knows what he's talking about.

For those interested, here is the EEOC guidance:
https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/...technical-assistance

Short summary:
• Your employer is legally permitted to require you to be vaccinated, according to the latest guidance from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

• There are some exceptions. If an employee will not be vaccinated because of a disability or a sincerely held religious belief, the business should try to make an accommodation -- if it does not pose an “undue hardship” on the business. Examples: Requiring the unvaccinated employee to wear a mask and/or socially distance from others.

• Employers that are administering vaccines to their employees may offer incentives for employees to be vaccinated, as long as the incentives are not coercive. Because vaccinations require employees to answer pre-vaccination disability-related screening questions, a very large incentive could make employees feel pressured to disclose protected medical information.

There are lawsuits out there and it will take some time to sort thru all of them, but in the meantime don't lose your job over bad advice on the internet.

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:

Short summary:
• Your employer is legally permitted to require you to be vaccinated, according to the latest guidance from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Even a "vaccine" that isn't even FDA approved?

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:

Short summary:
• Your employer is legally permitted to require you to be vaccinated, according to the latest guidance from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Even a "vaccine" that isn't even FDA approved?

Yes, for this it does not matter.
*Pending lawsuits, but most attorneys seem to think it won't matter*

But who's liable if I have a severe adverse event (either immediately or sometime in the future)? Who has the burden of proof for something that is largely idiopathic?

There is something seriously wrong with the law and our society if this is permitted.

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
But who's liable if I have a severe adverse event (either immediately or sometime in the future)? Who has the burden of proof for something that is largely idiopathic?

There is something seriously wrong with the law and our society if this is permitted.

You would be liable since it's your choice and your decision on whether to get the vaccine or not. Unless something radical happens in one of these legal challenges, you bear the responsibility because no one is forcing you to work for a company requiring a vaccine.

Liability for all vaccines made an administered in the U.S. is borne by the U.S. Government. I was made aware of this when I was advised to get vaccinated for yellow fever before going to Brazil. The U.S. made version was not available and I had to get a French import, which entailed signing all kinds of papers and listening to a doctor for a half hour about how technically under U.S. law the government is not liable for French vaccines, but under this specific program they would assume liability as with U.S. made vaccines.

I'm not sure why the EEOC has a position on this. They are not arbiters of the law regarding experimental treatments. But I think they are basically telling you to pound sand if you file a wrongful termination claim for refusing a vaccine. Regardless of the legality, they aren't going to do anything to the employer.

quote:

You would be liable since it's your choice and your decision on whether to get the vaccine or not. Unless something radical happens in one of these legal challenges, you bear the responsibility because no one is forcing you to work for a company requiring a vaccine.

That may be technically true but it’s disingenuous. It’s not so easy for many people to find a new job.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

You would be liable since it's your choice and your decision on whether to get the vaccine or not. Unless something radical happens in one of these legal challenges, you bear the responsibility because no one is forcing you to work for a company requiring a vaccine.

That may be technically true but it’s disingenuous. It’s not so easy for many people to find a new job.

I totally agree with you, I was just stating the argument that will be made and almost certainly sustained.

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
Liability for all vaccines made an administered in the U.S. is borne by the U.S. Government. I was made aware of this when I was advised to get vaccinated for yellow fever before going to Brazil. The U.S. made version was not available and I had to get a French import, which entailed signing all kinds of papers and listening to a doctor for a half hour about how technically under U.S. law the government is not liable for French vaccines, but under this specific program they would assume liability as with U.S. made vaccines.

I'm not sure the context of what you were told, but if you think that if you had gotten sick or had an adverse reaction to the yellow fever vaccine and that the US government was going to assume liability and take care of your medical bills that you would have been sorely disappointed. Why would the government accept the liability for every person who chooses to travel overseas? The US government won't even accept liability for US troops who have adverse reactions to forced vaccinations for deployment.

From Epoch News - June 9

Study: People Who Have Recovered From COVID-19 Unlikely to Benefit From Vaccine

By Zachary Stieber June 9, 2021 Updated: June 9, 2021

People who have previously been infected with the virus that causes COVID-19 are protected against being infected again and thus don’t need to be vaccinated, according to a new study.

“Our conclusion is that if you were previously infected, you are protected because of the previous infection and you don’t need the vaccine,” Dr. Nabin Shrestha, of the Cleveland Clinic’s Department of Infectious Disease, told The Epoch Times.

Shrestha and colleagues at the clinic studied data on employees, separating them into four groups: previously infected and unvaccinated, previously infected and vaccinated, not previously infected and unvaccinated, and not previously infected and vaccinated.

They found that the vaccines were strongly effective in preventing infection from the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus, which causes COVID-19, but that previous infection also bestowed a natural immunity.

“Among the people who were previously infected, whether they took the vaccine or not, there really were no COVID cases,” Shrestha said.

Of the 52,238 employees studied, 2,579 were previously infected. About half of those remained unvaccinated. Of the 49,659 employees who did not have a previous infection, 41 percent did not get a vaccine.

Using a Cox proportional hazards regression model and adjusting for the phase of the pandemic, vaccination was linked to a significantly lower risk of infection among those not previously infected but not among those who had had the disease.

In conclusion, the authors wrote, “Individuals who had had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before.”

SARS-CoV-2 is another name for the CCP virus.

The study is not peer-reviewed. It was submitted to journals, but they rejected it “because they think it’s not a priority for them,” Shrestha said. But it adds to the growing body of research that supports natural immunity existing for some time among those who contracted the illness.

Research published last month indicated that people who recovered from mild COVID-19 have long-lasting antibody protection. That built on research that reached a similar finding. Previous research also indicated that people who had COVID-19 showed virus-specific T cell responses. The World Health Organization on May 10, in an updated scientific brief (pdf), said that most people who are infected with the CCP virus and recover develop “strong protective immune responses” that remain “robust and protective against reinfection for at least 6–8 months.”

Based on what the Cleveland Clinic researchers found, natural protection from infection lasts at least a year.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) currently recommends that virtually everybody should get a COVID-19 vaccine. In a brief last updated in March, the agency acknowledges that studies indicate people who recover from the disease are protected against reinfection. The evidence “suggests that the risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection is low in the months after initial infection but may increase with time due to waning immunity,” the agency stated.

The CDC declined to respond to the new study.

“We do not comment on non-CDC authored papers. We continually evaluate the science that leads to our guidance, and if it needs to be changed, we will be base that on our own research and studies,” a spokesman told The Epoch Times in an email.

Shrestha, the study’s lead author, believes recommending vaccination for previously infected people is misguided.

“I personally feel that the vaccines are amazingly effective. We need to use them wisely. We should really not be thinking of this as a U.S. problem; it is a global problem,” he said. “It would make more sense to use the vaccine anywhere in the world where it would be effective in getting the pandemic under control.”

Meiling Lee contributed to this report.

From Epoch News - June 9

Weight-Adjusted Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin Boosted Survival of Ventilated COVID-19 Patients by 200 Percent: Study

By Tom Ozimek June 9, 2021 Updated: June 9, 2021

new study has found that the use of weight-adjusted hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and azithromycin (AZM) improved the survival of ventilated COVID-19 patients by nearly 200 percent.

The observational study, which hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed, was based on a re-analysis of 255 patients on invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) during the first two months of the pandemic in the United States.

The researchers found that when the HCQ–AZM combination was given at higher dosages to treat ventilated COVID-19 patients, the risk of death was about three times lower.

“We found that when the cumulative doses of two drugs, HCQ and AZM, were above a certain level, patients had a survival rate 2.9 times the other patients,” the authors of the study noted.

“By using causal analysis and considering of weight-adjusted cumulative dose, we prove the combined therapy, >3 g HCQ and > 1g AZM greatly increases survival in COVID patients on IMV and that HCQ cumulative dose > 80 mg/kg works substantially better.”

While the authors acknowledged that patients with higher doses of HCQ had higher doses of AZM, they “cannot solely attribute the causal effect to HCQ/AZM combination therapy.”

“However, it is likely AZM does contribute significantly to this increase in survival rate. Since higher dose HCQ/AZM therapy improves survival by nearly 200 [percent] in this population, the safety data are moot,” they added.

Hydroxychloroquine—an anti-inflammatory and anti-malarial drug—has been one of the most contested treatments for COVID-19 throughout the pandemic.

The drug was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1955 to treat and prevent malaria. It’s also prescribed for lupus and rheumatoid arthritis.

While the FDA initially granted HCQ an emergency use authorization (EUA) to treat COVID-19 in March 2020, the agency revoked it on June 15, 2020, because data suggested it was “unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19” and that its potential risks outweighed the benefits.

The FDA’s turnabout came on the heels of a study by Oxford University in the United Kingdom that found HCQ underperformed its routine treatment protocols.

“Unfortunately, problems in research methodologies assessing the effectiveness and risks of HCQ have left lingering doubts,” wrote Dr. Joseph Mercola, an osteopathic physician, in an op-ed for The Epoch Times. “Those problems include questionable dosing.”

Some, like Epoch Times contributor Roger L. Simon, have argued that studies around the use of HCQ to treat COVID-19 were politicized by opponents of former President Donald Trump, who advocated the use of the drug.