quote:

Lambda variant?

UN Jefferson isn't scared of the Lambda variant, and you shouldn't be either.

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
Lambda variant? My eyes are rolling so hard they are going to fall out of my head

The perpetual virus that never, ever, ends. What's disgusting is that this whole virus BS could end tomorrow if people simply banded together and said no more. That's all it would take.

I really think that it will be treated like employers requiring you to be paid via direct deposit. I heard people say that they would never do it. Well they either set up for direct deposit or did not get paid. It became a prerequisite for employment.

Totally different situation but I think that employers can make the vaccine a prerequisite for employment also. As long as they don’t discriminate, fire some unvaccinated & keep some unvaccinated the employer will win out.

Maybe I am nearly blind but I just don’t see any precedent that can be utilized otherwise.

I think the courts are going to find a big difference in whether one receives a direct deposit as opposed to a check, and mandating ingestion of a chemical to continue employment, slippery slope where employers could require pregnant employees to have an abortion, or be on birth control as a condition of employment.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
We're gonna need a bigger alphabet...

Thank goodness I wasn't drinking anything.

*Fun fact, almost everyone misquotes it. It's actually 'you're' not 'we're'.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
That would be the Teamsters. What would Hoffa do?

If history is any indicator.... disappear without saying a word.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
Pretty tough to start 'fighting back' after you've surrendered your firearms...

Far from what most think, there are some 2.6 million licensed firearms in Aus right now.

Unregistered? Shrug. 1.5 - 6 million mayhaps?

There's likely 'more' firearms in the country now, then there were before Port Arthur.

</chris>

“ Totally different situation but I think that employers can make the vaccine a prerequisite for employment also”

Sadly, it can be made a condition of employment for new hires and if they want to work there, they would be required to have it. I’m federal and will be subjected quite soon to “weekly testing” if I want to remain employed. I plan to create a stink with my agency by bringing it to their attention that vaccinated individuals are carriers and spreaders as well. I expect they will get a pass on weekly testing, however. They are already mandated to wear masks under the same conditions as unvaccinated employees, which doesn’t seem to sit well with them.

quote:

“Totally different situation but I think that employers can make the vaccine a prerequisite for employment also”

One way to push back:

What I Sent to my CEO

August 13, 2021

Hello ***CEO*** (name removed),

You know me. You trust me. You hired me to be a leader at this company and you value my contribution. I trust and admire you. However, I must write this letter to you anonymously for fear of reprisal– not fear of you, ***CEO***, but fear of the company’s decision. This is the sad state of our society, where matters that should be able to be discussed openly and honestly in good faith dialogue, must now be clandestinely communicated for fear of losing one’s livelihood. It’s insane to me that, in a country founded on freedom of speech and expression, I feel it’s necessary to take these precautions. While I would hope I am courageous enough to sacrifice my livelihood for personal convictions, I feel strongly obliged to do everything I can to stand up for both. Someday, I hope to thank you personally for your very tough decision on what concerns me most right now– the possibility of ***COMPANY*** requiring vaccines as a condition of employment.

If ***COMPANY*** requires vaccines I will have moral qualms about spending my precious days on the earth here and adding my value at this company. While I can only speak for and represent myself, I know I am not alone, as evidenced by conversations I’ve had and by the sheer visibility of those who are making the same stance I am.

I’m concerned our already challenging staffing issues will only compound, making it even harder to delight customers and operate profitably. Not to mention, making people choose between their livelihoods and taking experimental drugs, is morally wrong. Especially ones that have been proven to be unreliably effective, have caused adverse reactions up to and including death, and for which we do not yet understand the long term health implications. Especially with a virus that has a 99%+ survival rate. Life has always been and will always be “live at your own risk.” Welcome to being human.

Everyone at this point has chosen to receive the vaccine, has had COVID (and has antibodies), or has been offered the vaccine and yet, based on their individual risk profile, trade-off calculations, and personal human autonomy, have chosen not to take it. It seems the moral superiority of “my body, my choice” only applies to certain choices. If ***COMPANY*** requires vaccines for all employees, at a minimum, I would expect generous exemption clauses for remote workers, medical reasons, and religious reasons. For remote workers, what’s the point? For medical reasons, some people are more at-risk taking the vaccine than not taking it. For religious reasons, all of the COVID vaccines available on the market today were developed or tested using aborted fetal tissue. For some of us, this is a bridge too far. We wouldn’t be able to sleep at night, knowing we had allowed the product of the violence done to the unborn to course through our veins. Devout Christians like me believe we will stand before God one day and must give an account for that.

If more and more companies make vaccines mandatory, then the politicization of everything has achieved its coup d’etat. It signals to me the slippery slope has been greased. It’s only a matter of time before those of us with “wrongthink” outside the “3×5 card of allowable opinion” come under pressure, persecution, and expulsion from polite society. This would significantly impair our ability to exchange our labor for the means to provide for our families. It sets the stage and precedent. It speeds the day when the undesirables will be excised from the ability to purchase the basic necessities of life– banking, food, housing. Cleanse the infidel. The unvaccinated become the scapegoat class for society’s ills. Please don’t be let ***COMPANY*** be a part of building that future.

***COMPANY*** has every right to require its employees to be vaccinated, as it is a private company. Yet this decision has moral consequences that our company’s leaders must wrestle with, and this letter is my plea to them to consider not making this a requirement. Just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should. Whenever I am in a plant I dutifully wear my PPE and consider that a reasonable condition for employment. However, the vaccine is not simply another piece of PPE. There are apples and oranges moral considerations here.

We talk about how we embrace and celebrate diversity, and I agree these are worthy values to embrace. Does this not apply to diversity in thought? I fear that individuality and diversity of thought will be eclipsed by top-down decision-making. That is a cultural shift with huge implications, both inside and outside the company. Those that resort to orders like this are essentially admitting to themselves that they are either unwilling or incapable of using persuasive methods and they are communicating to their subordinates that they are potentially undeserving of receiving persuasive methods. Groupthink will reign. Innovation will stifle. Decision makers will look for top-down central edicts supported by yes men. I implore you to not take this dangerous step. It will not end how you think it will end.

Back in March 2020, I think we were all willing to do “2 weeks to slow the spread.” But we knew by Summer of 2020 there was no containing the virus. No amount of mask wearing was going to kill it. No vaccine was available in time. Even the vaccine we have now is incapable of stopping the spread. Herd immunity was the only option for us then and it is the only option for us now. I’ve had COVID and by God’s grace, I recovered with no more than a severe cold.

Nearly everyone has lost someone to this virus. It’s a tragedy. Do we honor their memory by continuing our society in this fashion? Are they looking down on us now, glad to see how we are futilely trying ineffective, life-and-society-altering intervention after intervention? The answer was always something akin to “focused protection” as outlined by the unjustly ballyhooed Great Barrington Declaration. Let us practice focused protection at ***COMPANY***. I would gladly contribute to a fund to this end.

I will not take the first dose. I will not take the second dose. I will not take a booster shot. I will not take Booster Shot #374 in the Year 2036.

The pandemic is now endemic. It’s here to stay. There’s no going back. Today it’s Delta, tomorrow it’s Epsilon, next year it’s Beta Phi Omega. Believe whatever you want to believe about the “why”. China, Democrats, Republicans, Trump, “Anti-vaxxers”, “Anti-science” bumpkins. Blame whoever you want to blame, but nothing can change that now. We must learn to coexist with the virus.

One cannot casually turn complex supply chains on and off with a switch, expecting to profitably and consistently serve customers. Planning, capital investment, and economic calculation become a fool’s errand. This is no way to run a society or a company. Let us not add to the prevailing zeitgeist by embracing this method or thinking.

If the already single-party, authoritarian, collectivist, communist China cannot contain the virus with its heavy-handed response and total information control, what makes us think we can here in America with the Bill of Rights, free speech values, and western individualism getting in the way? Zero Covid was and is never attainable.

Enough with the social distancing. What if they make it 12 feet? 40 feet? Will we redesign our factories to accommodate this? Enough with the masks. Is it not clear by now they don’t work? They must be single-use, N95 masks to have a chance at stopping the droplets that transmit the virus. Our reused paper and cloth masks are not effective. Countless examples of this have been shown. In areas of mask mandates with high compliance we still see spread. Hand sanitization was always a good idea, but we’ve known surface transmissions have not been a vector of transmission since spring of 2020. It’s safety theatre. Time to drop the act. Say no to vaccine requirements and passports. What’s the point if the vaccines aren’t reliably effective?

Resist any government mandate pushed down upon ***COMPANY***. Only the leadership and shareholders of this company have any right to tell us what we can and can’t do with OUR property. We have the unelected bureaucrats at the Center for Disease Control making law about property rights! Where does it end?! Where are the great leaders who will stand up to this madness? We need brave, articulate, business leaders like you, ***CEO***, to say enough is enough. Will you be one? I will stand with you. At least don’t let them co-opt our great company into an extension of a totalitarian state.

Science involves more than just dictates from on high by “revered scientists,” and very rarely is science “settled” in a single year. Just as we learned in May 2020 that wiping every square inch with four gallons of bleach was useless, scientists will be wrong, and people should be free to wait out what they feel is a confusing and complicated issue.

1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.

But it’s still not too late. You know we can just stop all this, right? It’s time. ***COMPANY*** should lead.

I believe you will make the right decision. If we terminate people for their decisions to not inject substances in their bodies, how many will pursue wrongful termination legal recourse? It could cost the company dearly. Let’s apply that money instead to serving our customers better every day with industry-leading products. That’s what I’m here for. Let’s put this behind us and focus on what really matters and fight for what is right.

I love working at ***COMPANY***. I believe in our mission, vision, and products. I think we are on our way to true Premiere Performance. I believe I am a key player in achieving this. I have a great team and we are making major improvements. I really want to stay at ***COMPANY*** and continue to plow my thinking, effort, and strategy into making us the vendor of choice for ***OUR PRODUCTS***. I don’t want to leave. I want to add my value here. I beg you, please do not make vaccines mandatory.

Thank you,

Your Sincere ***COMPANY*** Team Member

https://www.lewrockwell.com/20...at-i-sent-to-my-ceo/

Meh... comes across as a diatribe on current events. Two paragraphs at most is all that is needed & quite frankly all a CEO will read.

It makes some good points, but a whole lot of that ink is spent ranting and talking about things that aren't related to the company at all. I happen to agree with a lot of it, but I don't think a letter to the CEO should come across as a manifesto.

quote:

Originally posted by Perception:
I don't think a letter to the CEO should come across as a manifesto.

Yeah... I think that's right, for most letters to the CEO.
But I think the letter was addressed to a larger audience (like us) rather than just the CEO. I'm not saying I don't believe he actually sent it to the CEO of *COMPANY*, but that it's larger point was to encourage others to stand up.

“The obedient always think of themselves as virtuous rather than cowardly.”

Biden regime is actually talking about this, imagine what they're cooking up behind closed doors:

Still, while more severe measures — such as mandating vaccines for interstate travel or changing how the federal government reimburses treatment for those who are unvaccinated and become ill with COVID-19 — have been discussed, the administration worried that they would be too polarizing for the moment.

The CDC's Bogus Kentucky COVID Research
By Ron Pillman

On Aug 6, 2021 the CDC presented a paper titled “Reduced Risk of Reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 After COVID-19 Vaccination -- Kentucky, May–June 2021.” Having spent the last two decades in the pharmaceutical industry, I’m well versed in spotting studies whose primary purpose is to sell a product instead of actually advancing science. I believe that is the case here.

On the surface, the CDC’s paper appears to be straightforward: they did a statistical analysis of people in Kentucky who previously had COVID-19 and later were reinfected, finding that people who were unvaccinated had a greater than two-times risk of being reinfected vs those who were vaxxed. This led the CDC to conclude “to reduce their likelihood for future infection, all eligible persons should be offered COVID-19 vaccine, even those with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Since the CDC, Dr Fauci, and their ilk have repeatedly declared that vaccination is better than natural immunity, this research will be incredibly helpful to their cause. But is there more than meets the eye to this study?

1- The CDC’s findings differ from those of other studies

When a doctor wants to prescribe a medication to a patient, he ideally wants to see multiple clinical studies that show similar results.
Loneliness and COVID-19

In the case of the CDC’s KY research, both the findings themselves (unvaccinated patients being reinfected at a high rate) and the conclusion (that natural immunity doesn’t last and therefore patients with a prior infection should be vaccinated) are contrary to multiple pieces of other research -- specifically a June 2021 publication from the Cleveland Clinic, a May 2021 publication from the Washington University of St. Louis, an Aug 2021 publication from the University of Barcelona, the Apr 2021 SIREN study from the UK, and numerous other studies -- unlike the CDC, these groups found that natural immunity after a COVID-19 infection was durable, long-lasting, and provided excellent protection against reinfection.

The CDC’s research is therefore an outlier vs other studies.

2- The sample size of the CDC research is small.

In the KY research, the sample size was a mere 246 patients in the study group and 492 in the control. These numbers are tiny. Why did they not pull from a larger sample size? After all, the larger the sample size, the more likely the results are due to a causal relationship and not random chance. A classic Big Pharma trick involving statistical analysis is to use small sample sizes, because it’s easier to cherry-pick the data and produce a finding that supports your desired result. As a point of reference, the Cleveland Clinic study included 52,000+ people and the UK SIREN Study had over 25,000 people. Was the CDC’s small sample size intentional because it made it easier for them to get the outcome they wanted?

3- There is a potential conflict of interest.

The most respected clinical trials are conducted by academic universities that did not receive funding from Big Pharma, have no conflicts of interests, and are not tied to the success of a product. Research funded by Big Pharma is associated with investigator bias concern. The least respected research is that in which the pharma company itself is involved in the research and/or part of the author group.

The research by the Cleveland Clinic, et. al. had no conflict of interest -- they were pure science studies. But what about the CDC’s KY Research? While the authors declared no conflict of interest, 3 of the 5 authors were scientists at divisions of the CDC. The CDC is also on record many times speaking in favor of the vaccine, therefore the CDC has a strong investigator bias to want to see an outcome favoring vaccines.

The fact is that the CDC funded the research, the CDC helped conduct the research, and the CDC helped author the publication -- is it any wonder that the CDC found the result it wanted?

4- The CDC research relied on the PCR test, however what constitutes a positive case is different for vaxxed vs unvaxxed patients.

On May 1, 2021, the CDC changed the definition of a ‘positive’ case for a PCR test depending on whether the subject is vaccinated. For unvaccinated subjects, the PCR test continued to use the aggressively high cycle threshold of 40+ and if the test came back positive, the unvaccinated patient was considered to have COVID-19, even if they were asymptomatic. However for vaccinated subjects, a positive case was now defined differently -- the cycle threshold was lowered (28 or fewer) which meant far less chance for the test to recognize a viral marker. Additionally, if vaccinated subjects were asymptomatic or had only mild symptoms, the tests were now declared to be negative because under the new rules, a vaccinated subject would only be considered COVID-positive, if they were hospitalized or died.

To compare an unvaccinated asymptomatic subject whose only marker for COVID is a highly upcycled PCR test against vaccinated patients who were hospitalized or died is the very definition of comparing apples and oranges.

In the case of the CDC’s KY Research, the sample period to measure for reinfection was May-Jun 2021 -- this is conveniently after the CDC changed the PCR test definition. Given that the CDC set up a system in which unvaccinated subjects have many more opportunities to be tagged as COVID-positive, it should come as no surprise that their research ‘discovered’ a higher reinfection rate among unvaccinated subjects because the system was rigged to produce this very result.

5 - The CDC recently admitted the PCR Test is inaccurate.

In July, 2021 the CDC revealed that it will be phasing out the Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel test because they found that the test is unable to differentiate between SARS-CoV-2 and other influenza viruses. The RT-PCR test is one of the tests used in the KY research. As we say in the pharmaceutical industry -- garbage data in, garbage conclusions out. If the CDC knew the RT-PCT/NAAT test was inaccurate in July, why publish research in Aug using bad data?

6- The CDC’s conclusions were based solely on test results and not hospitalization/death rates.

Remember, the CDC decided in May to change the definition of a “positive” case for vaccinated patients. The given reason was to ‘maximize the quality of the data’ by focusing on what matters -- hospitalization and death. If hospitalization and death are the only data that matter for a vaccinated patient, and the mere presence of a positive PCR-test for an asymptomatic vaccinated patient doesn’t matter, why don’t the same rules apply for asymptomatic unvaccinated patients?

7- The CDC’s research shows vaccinated patients experiencing breakthrough infections at a rate much higher than the CDC has admitted elsewhere.

We have been told that COVID infections and reinfections among vaccinated patients are ‘very rare.’ Unfortunately these claims don't hold water against real world evidence that recently came out of Massachusetts (74% of recent infections were vaccinated patients), the data from the Israel Minister of Health (40% of recent infections were vaccinated patients, only 1% were patients with a prior infection), And the KY research that we’ve been discussing that showed a 20-27% reinfection rate among vaccinated patients.

In addition, the authors themselves pointed out numerous limitations, including:

The inability to prove if the reinfection was new or just residual from a prior infection. Result: bad data.
Vaccination data of uncertain quality -- they admitted that people in the original unvaccinated patient or control group categories may have gotten the vax in another state or in between the study periods and therefore if reinfected they should have been counted as a case in the vaccinated group. Result: bad data.
This was a retrospective study design from a single state during a short two-month period; therefore, “these findings cannot be used to infer causation.” This small analysis should not be used to make large-scale assumptions or public health decisions.

Given the CDC’s history of manipulating research to drive their agenda -- (the infamous Mannequin trial on face masks, their attempt to hide ‘unpublished data’ from a peer-rejected paper from India, etc.) -- why should we trust that their KY research is any different?

The conclusion is clear -- the CDC had an agenda and concocted research to support said agenda. This is straight out of the Big Pharma Playbook on how to sell more product. In addition, with vaccine efficacy waning and breakthrough cases rising throughout the world, Big Pharma is salivating over the potential to make you a customer for life by giving you regular booster shots to protect you from a virus that represents minimal risk to a majority of the world.

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

They just can't control the narrative entirely, and that- I hope- will help bring out the truth more quickly.

Amtrak says if you want to ride the choo-choo you have to keep your mask on or be banned for life. Sounds super serious!


https://twitter.com/guypbenson.../1426188040628842498

Man, I want to be around when the chickens come home to roost, and then listen to all the rationalizations from all these organizations, about why they did what they did in the early 2020s.

Every stutter, every eye shift, every contradictoray excuse that comes out of their mouths at press conferences or in interviews, I want to be here to see all of it.

I swear there is some contest to which I'm not privy that is awarding something significant to people who come up with the dumbest rules, policies and regulations.

The amount of stupid being exhibited here is mind numbingly astonishing.

Yes, the overwhelming idiocy of it all may be the saving grace. At some point, people will begin to come out of their trance, and the goofier they acted in the midst of all this, the greater the chance they will come to realize how preposterous was their behavior. And some of them will have the courage to admit it.