|
Which horse film is your favorite? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Black Beauty |
|
2 | 1.06% |
| A Talking Pony!?! |
|
4 | 2.13% |
| Mr. Hands 2x Apple Flavor |
|
117 | 62.23% |
| War Horse |
|
11 | 5.85% |
| Mr. Hands |
|
54 | 28.72% |
| Total: | 188 votes | ||
|
Platystemon posted:Meanwhile, in public events news… I have mixed feelings on large events. If most people attending them are vaccinated, then it seems okay? Yeah, a small number of them may end up testing positive but there is a risk with everything, isn't there?
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 04:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 22:51 |
|
|
Platystemon posted:Meanwhile, in public events news… What's weird about this? Vaccinated people are getting breakthrough infections all the time. This is very well established, the vaccines do not provide sterilizing immunity. The vaccines are keeping these people from getting severe covid, hospitalization, and death.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 04:30
|
|
|
Like for fucks sakes you have hospitals sending patients hundreds of miles looking for ICU beds, patients that are dying in the er because they can't get beds, entire states empty of ICU and care beds. Tampa was literally just triage tagging patients in the ed and anyone green or yellow was slammed into a waiting room and told good luck fucker. We have patients from Florida being flown to Indiana, entire regions basically nonfunctional. And everything is just welp, it doesn't matter I don't see it. And there are many more ems jurisdictions that are running triage system, almost every hospital is at capacity or code omegas. It's not hard to get info on any of this if you just take a small look at it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 04:30
|
|
|
Apologies for publicly calling out Thoguh. Just to respond to this post here:empty whippet box posted:why are you posting about posting when nobody else was? Well, it's pretty straightforward: Thoguh was doing a bunch of burden-shifting ("can you quote the posts you made explaining those concepts? I missed them") and just-asking-questions ("I am very interested to learn more about how these states are suffering consequences for their actions"). So, on a hunch, I checked their post history and lo-and-behold, literally the third post on the list, one they had made within the hour, was the one I quoted here, where they were talking about how insufferable they found us, and this forum generally. Based on this, I think it is 100% fair to ask what their actual motivation for continuing to post here is. To be clear, I think everyone is welcome to post in this forum and in this thread, provided they aren't poo poo-talking us behind our backs. If the expectation is that we treat them respectfully by spending time and effort responding to them, I think it should be reasonable to expect them to reciprocate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 04:36
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:I have mixed feelings on large events. If most people attending them are vaccinated, then it seems okay? Yeah, a small number of them may end up testing positive but there is a risk with everything, isn't there? My point in posting that was that there’s a discrepancy between the success reported by the media and the people involved in these events and the reality on the ground. Even the official figures for Lollapalooza are a little over two hundred infections linked to it. If two people died in shootings or stabbings every time a music festival was held, I would like to think that local authorities would do something about that. How are u posted:What's weird about this? Vaccinated people are getting breakthrough infections all the time. This is very well established, the vaccines do not provide sterilizing immunity. The vaccines are keeping these people from getting severe covid, hospitalization, and death. No one has impugned the honor of your vaccine, sir. I, for one, have always followed the science that says that the rate of breakthroughs should be expected to be at least five percent—not the 0.0000000042069% the usual suspects trumpeted in May, based on a denominator of all vaccinated persons. Platystemon fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Sep 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 04:36
|
|
|
A short layman's guide to getting started with reading scientific literature I encourage anyone who is reading and posting a lot about the COVID-19 pandemic to spend a little time digging into actual scientific literature. With some practice you can get fairly decent at interpreting literature and evaluating claims made by the media or on the forums or social media platforms. This is only meant to get you started and to demystify academic literature. It's not only for supernerds, any ol' goon can read publications. Caveat: this is very bare-bones basics, I'm just encouraging people to start reading publications. There is a ton of nuance and complexity not included here.
Again, it's going to take practice to get good at this. But you should be able to quickly skim an article in maybe 15-20min and get a good idea of what the actual scientific literature is saying. Fritz the Horse fucked around with this message at 04:42 on Sep 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 04:39
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:Well, it's pretty straightforward: Thoguh was doing a bunch of burden-shifting ("can you quote the posts you made explaining those concepts? I missed them") and just-asking-questions ("I am very interested to learn more about how these states are suffering consequences for their actions"). I am not 'just asking questions'. People are making very real claims about state level actions that I think are not backed up by reality so, because this is a thread about discussion, rather than just saying they are making things up I am asking them if they have sources to back up the things they are claiming.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 04:43
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:I am not 'just asking questions'. People are making very real claims about state level actions that I think are not backed up by reality so, because this is a thread about discussion, rather than just saying they are making things up I am asking them if they have sources to back up the things they are claiming. Do you have a source for your claims that their claims are not backed up by reality?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 04:50
|
|
|
I think it is reasonable to assume that, since the FDA approved the pfizer vaccine for off label use, states have the ability to support booster shots provided a person received a doctors approval. Otherwise the FDA would be arguing against itself. Edit: I think a lot of posters are missing that when a state is able to enact a policy that is detrimental to public health and goes against the CDC / FDA recommendation without any consequence, it comes across as disingenuous to say a state can’t do something potentially beneficial to public health that also goes against the CDC / FDA recommendation. It provides the appearance that the government is only capable of doing something harmful rather than helpful. virtualboyCOLOR fucked around with this message at 04:56 on Sep 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 04:51
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:I am not 'just asking questions'. People are making very real claims about state level actions that I think are not backed up by reality so, because this is a thread about discussion, rather than just saying they are making things up I am asking them if they have sources to back up the things they are claiming. Fritz the Horse posted:and Texas and Florida are going to get dragged to court for not complying with vaccine mandates Discendo Vox posted:State attempts to deny or block vaccine mandates will be subject to court proceedings that, to the degree that they hinge on nullifying federal authority, will be subject to the same analysis I just described. Discendo Vox posted:We have described the relevant legal authorities at length. The principles are not different or special in the case of vaccination. Texas, Montana and Florida do not have the ability to nullify federal laws or regulations. It is unlikely that legal proceedings have begun in any of these states because the OSHA rule hasn't been even promulgated yet. Discendo Vox posted:States do not even have a mechanism for medication approval. States cannot nullify federal authority. We fought a war over this. Marijuana enforcement is an entirely different form of authority tied to the 10th amendment's police power. State ability to ignore other federal authorities is tied to rejecting associated federal programs and funding. Discendo Vox posted:Phigs, you straight up do not know anything about the "technocratic bullshit" you are attacking. Just for one example, the FDA lost the ability to directly regulate prescription decisions due to a suit from WLF a long time ago (iirc the first case in the most recent run was 1997), and their ability to regulate related marketing activity has been under continuous attack ever since. It's the basis of the currently widespread practice of offlabeling and probably has an 8-digit deathtoll. You are trying to make us explain every part of the concept of federal supremacy and administrative law from first principles, and ignoring every explanation provided. virtualboyCOLOR posted:I think it is reasonable to assume that, since the FDA approved the pfizer vaccine for off label use, states have the ability to support booster shots provide a person received a doctors approval. Otherwise the FDA would be arguing against itself. The FDA does not "approve for off label use". Offlabel use is a deregulatory gap introduced into FDA authority over physician practices. In function physician practices are restricted by state or system practice guidelines and civil liability. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:54 on Sep 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 04:52
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You are trying to make us explain every part of the concept of federal supremacy and administrative law, and ignoring every explanation provided. I read the entirety of your post and I do not feel like anything you linked was a material response to my question about how state level actors are held accountable for anything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 04:56
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You are trying to make us explain every part of the concept of federal supremacy and administrative law from first principles, and ignoring every explanation provided. Kind of confused about how quoting something and continuing the discussion is "ignoring" it. The discussion was fine until you guys jumped in and decided to backseat mod the thread. Now it's been basically a whole page of this bullshit instead of the discussion that was ongoing. I was reading it and it's annoying that you shut it down.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 04:56
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The FDA does not "approve for off label use". Offlabel use is a deregulatory gap introduced into FDA authority over physician practices. In function physician practices are restricted by state or system practice guidelines and civil liability. I assume a state could provide liability protections in the case of a booster shot. This would effectively allow boosters regardless. After all, New York provided liability protections for assisted living facilities during the early days of the pandemic. This was a time when those facilities were operating in ways that went against CDC recommendations.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 04:59
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:I assume a state could provide liability protections in the case of a booster shot. This would effectively allow boosters regardless. Do you really want states being able to give physicians and pharma companies immunity for circumventing safety regulations? Suck Moredickis fucked around with this message at 05:08 on Sep 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 05:06
|
|
|
Suck Moredickis posted:Do you really want states being able to give physicians and pharma companies immunity for administering non-FDA-approved medicines? It is my understand it was that way already. Again, New York and other states already provided liability protection on medical care provided by assisted living facilities. In reality what I would prefer is the FDA ignore the selfish advisory board who voted to protect themselves and instead listen to the epidemiologists that had concluded that boosters are helpful.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 05:10
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:I read the entirety of your post and I do not feel like anything you linked was a material response to my question about how state level actors are held accountable for anything. Yes, you have established that nothing will satisfy you because you are here to poo poo up the thread. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 05:13
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:It is my understand it was that way already. Again, New York and other states already provided liability protection on medical care provided by assisted living facilities. Sorry, I edited my post because my initial question wasn’t accurate. But as to your second paragraph: where do you get the idea that the advisory board is “selfish”? And why do you know better than they do? You talk about epidemiologists who concluded that boosters are helpful, but how do you know their studies are any good? What about studies that conclude boosters are unhelpful? Do you have any insight that the FDA advisory board doesn’t about the scientific consensus?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 05:14
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Yes, you have established that nothing will satisfy you because you are here to poo poo up the thread. I am very willing to see and respond to evidence. You quoted some posts that were at best tangential to the question. If you present me with evidence that the federal government is taking tangible action to counteract state level action in Texas or Florida I would be happy to read it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 05:17
|
|
|
IK Warning: If you aren't posting sources and arguing with other folks who are, don't expect them to do your work for you. You want to put on adult pants and argue, better be prepared to back it up. This is not the moral superiority station, no one gives a poo poo that you think something should be done, we all do. If there is someone who you absolutely cannot help but start attacking for dumb bullshit then put them on ignore and save us all some trouble. My general thread rule of treat each other like human beings is pretty loving easy to follow and yet some of you still can't seem to follow that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 05:20
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:This kind of posting is extremely tiring. This thread is a huge improvement compared to the previous one and yet quotes like the ones above that appears to be more interested in bringing up posting wars and take cheap shots against their posting enemies than engage in debating. I'll respond one last time on this subject because I think you are being genuine and bringing up a few fair points. I personally don't care if your life philosophy is one where rules and laws don't matter, and can and should be ignored and even broken so long as doing so accomplishes practical goals (even if the reasoning and motivations are ill-informed), but you probably won't encounter many posters in D&D who are the same way. If that gets frustrating for you, that's on you. Every forum has its own sub-culture. On the other hand, I also don't think you'll find any liberal/Democrat in this thread who has argued that the Biden administration has done the best job they can. I myself have complained about Biden's shortcomings in this area several times, and up until the recent announcement about the vaccine mandate, was hugely frustrated (I still am, but less so now). I don't know if there's a way to completely avoid these types of fundamental and irreconcilable disagreements, to be honest. However, what actually does get annoying is the "screaming into the void" type behavior, where posters who seem more interested in airing grievances than anything else. Don't get me wrong, airing grievances is fine and normal, as this is a pandemic that has touched everyone in one way or another and we should all be cognizant of that. But then when those same posters refuse to back down, and instead double, triple, quadruple down on things even after having been explained stuff and corrected, the resulting conversation sucks the oxygen out of the room. It's why I stopped participating in the previous iteration of this thread. I have tried to contribute to this one to the best of my ability, and have been asked to continue doing so. However, I am also concerned that we've already had people (trained experts!) give up and leave the thread, and I don't want to burn out like them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 05:22
|
|
|
The context of this in the US is also a perpetual slow-burn constitutional crisis largely engineered by fascists who think our tendency to have rules or norms is incredibly funny.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 05:24
|
|
|
Suck Moredickis posted:Sorry, I edited my post because my initial question wasn’t accurate. Noting what you edited, I don’t think my response changes because effectively states already allowed that. Instead I am suggesting states can use their power for the benefit of the public instead of only to protect the wealthy like New York did. quote:But as to your second paragraph: where do you get the idea that the advisory board is “selfish”? And why do you know better than they do? The reason why I used selfish is many of those on the advisory board appeared over they age of 65 to me. One even asked out loud if the age could be lowered to 60 and up since they were 63. quote:
I don’t know because I am not an expert. I rely on those who are. Israel’s medical experts came to the consensus that boosters were beneficial and recommended. Epidemiologists in america recommended it. I’m going to go by what they say.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 05:24
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:I am very willing to see and respond to evidence. You quoted some posts that were at best tangential to the question. If you present me with evidence that the federal government is taking tangible action to counteract state level action in Texas or Florida I would be happy to read it. Discendo Vox posted:We have described the relevant legal authorities at length. The principles are not different or special in the case of vaccination. Texas, Montana and Florida do not have the ability to nullify federal laws or regulations. It is unlikely that legal proceedings have begun in any of these states because the OSHA rule hasn't been even promulgated yet. The vaccine mandate was announced last week. The OSHA rules through which it is being enforced have not even come into force yet. Therefore there are no court challenges yet, though several GOP governors have threatened them and will almost certainly follow through. There is no federal action to counteract state-level resistance to vaccine mandates because the rules have not come into effect and court cases challenging those rules have not been filed. Are you unfamiliar with the history of Nullification? The reason I originally linked Wikipedia was that nullification is a pretty basic concept in US history and constitutional law. States don't get to ignore federal law and regulations, that's established precedent for two centuries. My original post that you responded to was future tense Fritz the Horse posted:and Texas and Florida are going to get dragged to court for not complying with vaccine mandates Texas, Florida, and others will be (in the future, once OSHA rules are promulgated and the lawsuits filed) dragged to court and they will get owned because the concept of nullification was struck down repeatedly by courts in the early 1800s and ended once and for all by the Civil War.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 05:26
|
|
|
Draft everyone into the National Guard. Immunize them as appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 05:29
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:
Do you consider the FDA panel that voted down boosters for healthy under 65s to not be experts? Why are Israel's medical experts opinions valid but not theirs? I think it's also worth noting that as far as I can tell, as of now pretty much everywhere else with a good supply of shots, if they're moving towards boosters at all it's only for the elderly and immunocompromised, those at a high risk of severe illness, etc... Europe, Canada, etc... The FDA isn't the only health authority that hasn't found the Israeli data to be convincing enough on the point of offering boosters to everyone right now. Mr Luxury Yacht fucked around with this message at 05:37 on Sep 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 05:30
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Draft everyone into the National Guard. Immunize them as appropriate. You can build your society into any form you want with universal indefinite conscription! Look at Eritrea!
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 05:31
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:Do you consider the FDA panel that voted down boosters for healthy under 65s to not be experts? Why are Israel's medical experts opinions valid but not theirs? I do not think an advisory board that allowed power point slides from covid deniers and antivaxxors is of sound mind to make such decisions. A number of countries support boosters in various ways: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-booster-idUKKBN2GA190 I personally will listen to epidemiologists who are way smarter than me and are the subject matter experts. They recommend boosters.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 05:38
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:Noting what you edited, I don’t think my response changes because effectively states already allowed that. Instead I am suggesting states can use their power for the benefit of the public instead of only to protect the wealthy like New York did. The age of the FDA advisory board doesn't seem to be relevant. They'd get their boosters whether they'd approved them for 60+ or 18+. And it's not as though supply of vaccines is constrained within the U.S. quote:I don’t know because I am not an expert. I rely on those who are. Israel’s medical experts came to the consensus that boosters were beneficial and recommended. Epidemiologists in america recommended it. I’m going to go by what they say. As a non-expert, how do you even know that Israel's medical experts came to a "consensus" that boosters were beneficial and recommended to all adults? Reaching scientific consensus is often a messy process when a novel disease and novel treatment for it are at issue. Relatedly, how do you determine that epidemiologists in America reached a consensus to recommend them for all adults? The foremost authority on vaccines that exists seems to disagree. virtualboyCOLOR posted:I do not think an advisory board that allowed power point slides from covid deniers and antivaxxors is of sound mind to make such decisions. Somebody upthread may have explained this already, but those powerpoint slides were from a public comment hearing. Those hearings allow input from lots of folks--and they are required to. The fact that crackpots gave a presentation at a public hearing has no bearing on the advisory board's decision. Suck Moredickis fucked around with this message at 05:42 on Sep 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 05:40
|
|
|
Pfizer has explained for months that boosters for everyone would be required. I don't know why we would suddenly second-guess the scientists who created the vaccines, over the highly politically motivated fda.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 05:40
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:I do not think an advisory board that allowed power point slides from covid deniers and antivaxxors is of sound mind to make such decisions. The vast majority of those are boosters for the immunocompromised and elderly which is what the FDA panel recommended?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 05:42
|
|
|
Suck Moredickis posted:
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-finds-covid-19-vaccine-booster-significantly-lowers-infection-risk-2021-08-22/ 
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 05:43
|
|
|
papa horny michael posted:Pfizer has explained for months that boosters for everyone would be required. I don't know why we would suddenly second-guess the scientists who created the vaccines, over the highly politically motivated fda. Why would the FDA be "highly politically motivated" against recommending boosters for the general population? In contrast, why would Pfizer not be highly financially motivated to recommend them far and wide, for everyone?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 05:44
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-finds-covid-19-vaccine-booster-significantly-lowers-infection-risk-2021-08-22/ That article specifically says "A third dose of Pfizer (PFE.N)'s COVID-19 vaccine has significantly improved protection from infection and serious illness among people aged 60 and older in Israel compared with those who received two shots, findings published by the Health Ministry showed on Sunday." All adults is not 60 and older. We're generally arguing if it's needed for the average non-immunocompromised goon here. It's not a given that younger folks will see the same improvement in protection as olds since 1. They may have had a better response to the initial shots and 2. Their immunity may not wane at the same rate. You can't really compare like, an 80 year old's immune systems to a 30 year old's.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 05:48
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Why would the FDA be "highly politically motivated" against recommending boosters for the general population? In contrast, why would Pfizer not be highly financially motivated to recommend them far and wide, for everyone? i don't understand why anyone would entertain a conspiracy that the company providing the research and medical technology keeping a significant portion of the planet alive would alter their research findings for momentary monetary gains. The fda has repeatedly changed messaging in light of public response rather than scientific consensus. as when they advised not to mask at multiple times throughout the pandemic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 05:49
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:Do you consider the FDA panel that voted down boosters for healthy under 65s to not be experts? Why are Israel's medical experts opinions valid but not theirs? One meteorologist says it’s going to rain overnight. Another meteorologist says it won’t. They’re both experts. Either of them may be right. What I’m actually going to do with this conflicting information is to to throw a tarp over the pallet of plaster I have in the side yard because it costs me little to do so and I’m risking a lot if it does rain.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 05:50
|
|
|
papa horny michael posted:i don't understand why anyone would entertain a conspiracy that the company providing the research and medical technology keeping a significant portion of the planet alive would alter their research findings for momentary monetary gains. Well for one thing, the authority making masking recommendations was the CDC.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 05:50
|
|
|
I think posters are continuing to talks past each other. Here’s the argument myself and others are presenting: “Israel, pfizer, and epidemiologists have recommended boosters for all. We should listen to them.” Here is the argument that isn’t being said but is more likely at the heart of the issue: The wealthy and politicians are getting a booster. They must know something. I want one for my family too. Please keep this in mind when you are defending the FDA advisory’s decision. It’s not the actual debate so it’s not a persuasive argument when those in power are not impacted Mr Luxury Yacht posted:That article specifically says "A third dose of Pfizer (PFE.N)'s COVID-19 vaccine has significantly improved protection from infection and serious illness among people aged 60 and older in Israel compared with those who received two shots, findings published by the Health Ministry showed on Sunday." Please read a little further “On Thursday it dropped the age of eligibility for a booster to 40, and included pregnant women, teachers and health care workers below that age. Third doses are given only to those who received their second shot at least five months ago.”
virtualboyCOLOR fucked around with this message at 05:55 on Sep 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 05:51
|
|
|
papa horny michael posted:Pfizer has explained for months that boosters for everyone would be required. I don't know why we would suddenly second-guess the scientists who created the vaccines, over the highly politically motivated fda. Yes, does that mean that Pfizer is saying that everyone should get a third jab right now? In every circumstance?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 05:52
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:
Can you please explain what incentive the FDA advisory board has for restricting access to booster shots for the general population? Especially given that vaccines are not in short supply.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 05:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 22:51 |
|
|
Platystemon posted:One meteorologist says it’s going to rain overnight. Another meteorologist says it won’t. I think you're missing a big part of this. Let's say you do go ahead with a wide-scale booster campaign right now for everyone. Not just the elderly and immunocompromised. This isn't going to be a case of "Just get your booster they're throwing it out anyway", it'll be a deliberate campaign requiring putting aside hundreds of millions of shots for the US alone. That's hundreds of millions of shots that can't be sent elsewhere. Let's say Europe does it as well, hundreds of millions more. Etc... Now if the data is showing the protection against severe disease and death is basically the same, but you get a moderate protection against infection (how long and how much for younger healthy people is still very much up in the air), is it worth not sending those shots to places that haven't had the first two yet? What's more likely to slow the global spread and prevent the next Ligma variant from popping up in the long run?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 05:56
|
|