galaxy flyer

If “consent of the governed” meant anything, we’d be revolting against the Feds. 12% have confidence in Congress? Who are those naive souls?

rickair7777

Delta has "not decided" whether to comply with WH instructions to mandate employee vaccination. Implies that they at least have some doubts about the binding legality of the mandate....


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-a...-idUSKBN2GT0LD

https://www.reuters.com/business/aer...es-2021-10-01/

MiLtoMajor123

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/cor...254111268.html

If the CDC is going to change the definition of Vaccine mid pandemic....what about the "legal" basis of mandates? Given past precedent of government mandates used the normal definition of Vaccine (To provide immunity). Can the definition just be changed and make the mandates still legal? At the very least it is .....shall we say.....Suspicious given how the goal posts have been moved on the how good these so called Vaccines are amiright? I think it's even more interesting given that Vaccines are never 100% immunity for everyone.......okay......buy that's known. Why change the definition given that fact? This just seems like more politicing (aka CYA).....or maybe a pivot to help a legal defense of Government mandates of vaccines or worse....to expand the Governments power over the people.

rickair7777

In medicine and science it was always understood that vaccine acquired "immunity" (or any other sort of "immunity") could be total, partial, long lasting, or require boosters. That was a given, and you can verify it by reading about a variety of existing vaccines on wikipedia, which have a variety of efficacy, duration, etc. Nobody has been trying to make the case that the flu "vaccine" isn't really a vaccine, and it's performance is quite variable.

They changed the wording to be more clear for the public, which tends to assume the webster definition of "immunity", vice the real meaning in the immunology context.

As to whether the CDC's language would affect any legalities or legal precedent is less clear and may get tested. How that plays out may depend on whether existing precedent (often very old) was originally tied to the CDC definition in the first place... so probably not going anywhere since there is plenty of vaccination precedent which was set long before the CDC (or any of it's predecessor agencies) even existed.

MiLtoMajor123

Wikipedia a reliable source? Yeah no! It's more like cliff notes which have been altered for public consumption and sometimes very politically biased.


As far as mandate precedent. Do they consider lethality of the disease and effectiveness of the vaccine? What was the standard for FDA approval of a vaccine prior to covid?

One would also have to consider herd immunity and natural immunity right? No point in mandating a vaccine you don't need if you've already been infected and recovered?

Hint....not on wikipedia.... https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/eji.202149535
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2784013

So another question is....what are we being vaccinated against? Are the FDA approved vaccines effective (over time) against the Delta variant? And if not....why would a mandate of an older vaccine vice the booster ...be mandated if it's old news?

flyprdu

Please share one of your "approved" sources for unbiased news.

Polio doesn't kill. Still mandated.

It remains unchanged.

There's no way to verifiably confirm that a person has had a previous infection and acquired immunity. The antibody testing is notoriously unreliable, not standardized, and prohibitively expensive. A $10 dollar vaccine is the cheapest and simplest way to confirm immunity.


Boosters over time bring efficacy back over 95%. At some point, all your complaints just devolve into whining.

Nantonaku

Seriously, Polio doesn't kill? News to me. Sounds like you are full of it. Just like the rest of the rubbish you typed.

flyprdu

COVID kills more than Polio. And yet, we don't hear you complaining about Polio mandates.

By the way, your disapproval is the highest endorsement you can give me. You're one of the most reliable trash posters here.

MiLtoMajor123

So anytime we have something that is 99% survivable....your answer.... even if you've already had it and are naturally protected......is to just get the "cheap" shot and shut up? Forgot where that whole critical thinking and free choice comes into the picture vice the top down "DO WHAT WE SAY for your own good" (or your fired and cut off from society) Government overreach. What is your line in the sand? Would you trust them if NO testing was done? Can you state EXACTLY what the "normal" FDA approval process is? Last time I checked it takes 3-5 years for full approval....not just emergency use.

flyprdu

Can you explain to me what happens in those 3 to 5 years? Well. Larger and larger groups of people get vaccinated. I'd say 6 billion doses administered is a pretty good case study, don't you think?

Please explain what is lacking, in detail, from the FDA approval. Cite your sources please.

99% survival rate is still 3.3 million dead. I'm still not sure why the 99% talking point is so popular.

COVID lethality still doesn't even come close to addressing that it even if it doesn't kill you, It will ruin you.

8-15% of COVID survivors are experiencing long term issues from the disease.

So yes, the time for complaining is over. Put on your big boy pants and roll up your sleeve.