While there is a plethora of polarization around this entire narrative, let's consider the key word used throughout....

mandate. Roman and civil law. A written command given by a principal to an agent; specifically, a commission or contract by which one person (the mandator) requests someone (the mandatary) to perform some service gratuitously, the commission becoming effective when the mandatary agrees. In this type of contract, no liability is created until the service requested has begun. It is gratuitous if the parties do not state otherwise. Black's Law Dictionary, 8th Ed.

This request/gratuitous contract is relevant given the waiver of liability for the untested gene therapy manufacturer's EUA and the narrative produced for global consumption.

Why?

It would appear then, that the vaccine mandate was not according to Roman civil law or Black's Law Dictionary. The way it operated for many was a vaccine requirement if semantics are at issue. Many people were required to get the vaccine whether they wanted it or not.

Hopefully you ask rhetorically, you probably won’t get the answer you are looking for.

Streamer

Looking back on this thread, it really has aged well. Damn people like shillster, Toff, Jake and shillster 2.0 (Salmo) have really said some dumb fvcking schit that has been proven to be untrue. I’d be embarrassed if I was them.



Streamer

Embarassed? No. Why not follow the best available information at the time?

There will be another pandemic. Vaccinations will not be mandated. Mortality will soar. Mostly among the unvaccinated. Why? Because stupidity should hurt.

There was no “best available information at the time.” There was claims that were obviously made up to anyone who took just a moment to research anything. It was only “best available information at the time” to people who didn’t research anything and trusted everything that was told to them by the government and media. Almost all of it was wrong.

Yes there will be another pandemic and possibly a plandemic. It is an assumption on your part that mortality will “soar” as it depends on the lethality of the virus. History has shown us that an effective vaccine cannot be created in time to combat the beginning stages of a new virus when it is at its strongest point. Stupidity should hurt, and unfortunately for those who took the vaccine, they are and will be the victims.


Streamer

Oh for fvck sake, there is always a "best available information" at any given time. Some times it isn't a lot, and some times some or all of it is later found to be wrong. But on any given day there is always some "best available information."

You're right, mortality will only soar to the extent that the virus is lethal. I guess I was thinking that if it isn't lethal to a significant degree, then it wouldn't amount to much of a pandemic.

Oh for fvck sake, we hardly had any information about the virus and no honest research tied to the mandates such as paper surgical masks, social distancing, and true vaccine efficacy and any longitudinal data. We rolled with what sounded nice and based purely on assumption. Just admit that people overreacted, literally made schit up, then mandated it. But sure play semantics and call it “best available information”… yeah you aren’t fooling anyone.



So kind of like Covid-19 at its peak with a less than 0.003% mortality rate?


Streamer

"So kind of like Covid-19 at its peak with a less than 0.003% mortality rate?"

Is that the mortality rate of the entire population or the mortality rate of those infected? That would be a distinction with a difference.

The number represents for the entire population. I give this number as being the most conservative. Adjusting for age and co-morbidities further reduces the percentage. The majority of the population is under 70 and doesn’t haven co-morbidities, yet those outside of this demographic overwhelmingly represent the number of deaths skewing the percentage.

Mortality rate for infections would be a different number, but also a lower number as most people have had covid more than once.


Streamer

Oh and by the way… it looks like there is a connection between Autism Spectrum Disorders and vaxxxines.


https://publichealthpolicyjournal.com/va...ed-in-medicaid/


Streamer

Not the way math works. If it's 0.003 for the entire population, then as the sample size shrinks into more specific demographics, the mortality rate increases. Nonetheless, the overall mortality rate was low, but still, over a million Americans died. To the point here, we are closer to agreement than when this discussion began. I've read a bit, but admittedly not a lot - because there is just so damn much!

The US gov't handled Covid poorly. Truth be told, I don't know what the best path forward through the pandemic would have been. But there should have been greater focus on so called fat shaming because people who were obese and or diabetic were most at risk. They also said over 70, which I am, so that caught my attention. But I'm not obese or diabetic, so even because of my age, my individual risk was probably relatively low. And maybe why I haven't had covid, yet anyway. Also maybe because I got the vaccine. Or both. The upshot is that the US has done almost nothing to prepare for the next pandemic, according to an interview I saw with Bill Gates. He's very into global health with his philanthopy and estimates a 10 to 15% probability of another pandemic within four years. So we have a statistically good chance that we won't have Trump urging Americans to use ivermectin or stick a light bulb up their azzes.

Bill Gates?



go do some reading on how many kids and adults his BS vaccination attempts have killed or maimed in Africa and other places...

the guy is the devil...

also, you still hung up on the Ivermectin crap like CNN told you to be...

even after i posted articles from the NIH from 2004 that showed that it was a potent inhibitor of the original SARS virus?

nah?

well how about this, its since been updated, so you can sh!tcan that noise about it not working....

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166354220302011#:~:text=Ivermectin%20is%20an%20inhibitor%20of,has%20a%20potential%20for%20repurposing.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8526435/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32251768/

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7539925/

Hydroxychloroquine is another one, with articels from 2004 showing it stopped the virus as well...

or you can have CNN tell you it wont work...

The only reason to keep beating this dead horse is that it's likely there will be another pandemic of some kind in our lifetime. Too many people, too much intercontinental travel. Instead of leveling our vitriol at what happened and how it was handled, what exactly should have been done differently? What should we do in the future when something nasty appears that we don't fully understand? Seemed like something had to be done to at least avoid overwhelming the medical system. That did happen in this state. I had a needed surgery and got bumped because out of state covid patients had to transferred to Swedish. My doc fought to and got me me in but I got kicked out early afterwards to ride out a few days at my son's place since I couldn't be too far away.

In the end, the government overreached with vaccine requirements and too broad of shut downs

I think you are a bit confused on the math. Let me clarify. As the sample shrinks into more specific demographics, the mortality can either increase or decrease depending upon the variables within each demographic. The elderly and those with co-morbidities have a higher mortality rate. If they are included in the sample, it would skew the overall mortality higher. Most people aren’t over 70 or with co-morbidities. If individuals under 70 without co-morbidities (most people) are the sample, the mortality rate decreases drastically.

Yes, over a million Americans died. All with covid, and an undetermined amount “from” covid. Given the preponderance of deaths occurring with people that have multiple co-morbidities, it begs the question of whether the person is truly the victim from covid or if it was their pre-existing ailment or disease that is primarily responsible for the mortality. More of an argument can be made of dying “from” covid if more younger, healthier people were represented in the mortality total.

Also, as another important thing to note, in the last 5 years, how many cases of influenza were there compared to the previous 5 years? It seems that there was quite a reduction in cases between 2020-2021. The CDC described flu activity as "unusually low" during those years. This was the lowest flu activity since the CDC began collecting data in 1997. Was this coincidence or perhaps flu and covid data were conflated? There was clearly financial incentive to do so. It really supports the theory that covid wasn’t actually as deadly as suggested.

Bill Gates is not a scientist, he doesn’t have a good track record, and doesn’t provide much in the way of validity. Ivermectin proved to be a valid form of treatment for many, whether the corrupt scientific community wants to acknowledge it or not. You are slowly sounding more informed and reasonable on the topic, so I am glad you are coming around, but you still have a ways to go.


Streamer

Yes, I have a ways to go. When the New England Journal of Medicine publishes an article demonstrating the effectiveness of jamming a light bulb up one's azz to cure covid or anything else, or ivermectin, then you'll have my full attention.

Bill Gates is a computer engineer (Harvard dropout and all), but he talks like a person who understands science, and he works with a broad range of scientists, so I think he is more credible about science than your average man on the street. Especially these days. Americans have never been so stupid about science. Ya' know, people in other advanced countries don't seem to share this ignorance.