ADVERTISEMENT

CDC new MASKLESS update

I could swear he signed an executive over on April 17 2020 opening Texas back up. Am I incorrect ?

Are you saying that is incorrect ? Are you also saying he didn’t shut everything down in June ?

He put in place an order to do a phased reopening in April 2020 on the then-cited premise that the lockdown was about preventing the health care system from being overwhelmed. It always was going to be data-dependent. In June, he reinstituted the shutdown on bars and restaurants went down to 50% capacity, but I don't believe things ever went to a full lockdown again.

Schools have been open in-person (with virtual options) in Texas for the whole academic year, subject to district-specific decisions on how to handle things. Texas has incredibly diverse constituents and geographies ... everything from some of the biggest metros in the country to some of the most rural areas anyone could imagine. A lot of times, things are reported nationally as "Abbott opens everything up!" when the facts are more nuanced and all that has happened is that the statewide restrictions were ended or loosened, subject to local authorities still being able to keep things tighter. (It hasn't been like that on everything, though, and he has been at odds with the city of Austin on some aspects of the COVID-19 response.)

I'm not making any arguments about reopening or not. That's been going on for 14 months or more, and I appreciate various perspectives on the issue. The approach in Texas just has been a bit more nuanced than "full lockdown" or "free for all," and he definitely didn't just throw open the whole state in April 2020, only to then lock it down for 6 months a few months later, as one may have read your post to imply.
 
He put in place an order to do a phased reopening in April 2020 on the then-cited premise that the lockdown was about preventing the health care system from being overwhelmed. It always was going to be data-dependent. In June, he reinstituted the shutdown on bars and restaurants went down to 50% capacity, but I don't believe things ever went to a full lockdown again.

Schools have been open in-person (with virtual options) in Texas for the whole academic year, subject to district-specific decisions on how to handle things. Texas has incredibly diverse constituents and geographies ... everything from some of the biggest metros in the country to some of the most rural areas anyone could imagine. A lot of times, things are reported nationally as "Abbott opens everything up!" when the facts are more nuanced and all that has happened is that the statewide restrictions were ended or loosened, subject to local authorities still being able to keep things tighter. (It hasn't been like that on everything, though, and he has been at odds with the city of Austin on some aspects of the COVID-19 response.)

I'm not making any arguments about reopening or not. That's been going on for 14 months or more, and I appreciate various perspectives on the issue. The approach in Texas just has been a bit more nuanced than "full lockdown" or "free for all," and he definitely didn't just throw open the whole state in April 2020, only to then lock it down for 6 months a few months later, as one may have read your post to imply.
I don’t believe I said he reopened fully . He just reopened when others didn’t and there were warnings he was opening too fast So he shut things down or phased back because they had a break out he was not counting on .
 
I don’t believe I said he reopened fully . He just reopened when others didn’t and there were warnings he was opening too fast So he shut things down or phased back because they had a break out he was not counting on .

Great. Thanks, Ed. Always a good reminder to not waste time interacting with you.
 
Great. Thanks, Ed. Always a good reminder to not waste time interacting with you.
Not sure the issue. If you didn't know I was speaking about Greg Abbott I apologize. However, you seemed to know once I cleared it up and you referenced an implication I did not make. Not sure why that makes it a difficult interaction.
 
I use that term all the time. It has merit. The media are one of the most corrupt, deliberately divisive elements of Western society.
Something liberal people should be able to admit as well. Channels and sites like yahoo and CNN rang coronavirus out like a bar rag for every last nickel. A 17 year old morbidly obese girl with advanced leukemia dies with Covid and they write and article with the headline “Covid killing teens in CA”. No mention of comorbidities and illnesses. Every singe anomaly is presented as rule rather than exception. They are no longer news sites, they are trying to make every cent and with shitty faux headlines. They relish their power to influence society not report news.
 
I use that term all the time. It has merit. The media are one of the most corrupt, deliberately divisive elements of Western society.

If Observer11 had said "media" earlier......I'd put more merit to it because news media organizations are inherently flawed. When he added "mainstream", it implies that he believes the absolute horsesh!t that gets passed around on OAN and sites like that. Maybe he doesn't waste his time watching that stuff, but anyone who watches right wing media has no moral high ground to judge liberal leaning "mainstream media".

I could fertilize my brother-in-law's 4500 acres here in Kansas with all the ludicrous crap that I see from right wing media sources. He'd never need to buy fertilize his farmland again if he could find a way to funnel that stupidity into the ground.
 
If Observer11 had said "media" earlier......I'd put more merit to it because news media organizations are inherently flawed. When he added "mainstream", it implies that he believes the absolute horsesh!t that gets passed around on OAN and sites like that. Maybe he doesn't waste his time watching that stuff, but anyone who watches right wing media has no moral high ground to judge liberal leaning "mainstream media".

I could fertilize my brother-in-law's 4500 acres here in Kansas with all the ludicrous crap that I see from right wing media sources. He'd never need to buy fertilize his farmland again if he could find a way to funnel that stupidity into the ground.
I think it's fair to think of it as a continuum, with the proffered middle, what one's apolitical grandmother from the age of Walter Cronkite would call "the news" (e.g., ABC, NBC, or CBS) skewing either a bit or pretty far to the left, depending on one's views. I find it hard to believe anyone would really something like CBS, ABC, or NBC doesn't skew at least a little left. That doesn't mean one has to disagree (or agree) with the skew or the underlying principles ... maybe one thinks they're on target because they think America's ideals should skew that way, and that isn't objectively unreasonable. But I'd wager that person is a lifelong Dem or at least leans blue. It's easy to see the tendencies on display there, much like it is in the WSJ or, of course, Fox News, the Blaze, OAN, or whatever (I don't watch any of these things anywhere on this spectrum; I just see things on Twitter that make it easy to discern where they stand merely by looking at the occasional headline). E.g., if someone didn't think WSJ skewed at least a tad to the right, they'd be nuts. All this just makes sense in terms of where journalists come from, what they're rewarded for, their political donations, etc. On the extremes, both "sides" have their echo chambers, since that's what draws loyal/repeat viewers who pump up ratings and buy the products and services offered in ads through those media. Some people refer to the "mainstream" media because those sources grandma would call "the news" skew left but are considered mainstream, whereas those that skew to the right usually are dismissed as right-wing propaganda with output that Flat would use to fertilize his BIL's farm with.

BTW, just search for something like "media bias chart" and a bunch of Google images search results will show you what I'm talking about. One can pick at some of the classifications but the principle doesn't seem legitimately controversial.
 
Mainstream media = Fox, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN. One word triggers invalidation of the scientific community and method? That's absurd.

There's literally thousands of sources of information available - the ones named above have failed miserably in asking questions about which scientists are now starting to become more vocal including source, transmission and treatment of COVID. Included in that is efficacy of vaccines vs. available treatment.

The Weinstein pod is one of the best out there.
 
I think it's fair to think of it as a continuum, with the proffered middle, what one's apolitical grandmother from the age of Walter Cronkite would call "the news" (e.g., ABC, NBC, or CBS) skewing either a bit or pretty far to the left, depending on one's views. I find it hard to believe anyone would really something like CBS, ABC, or NBC doesn't skew at least a little left. That doesn't mean one has to disagree (or agree) with the skew or the underlying principles ... maybe one thinks they're on target because they think America's ideals should skew that way, and that isn't objectively unreasonable. But I'd wager that person is a lifelong Dem or at least leans blue. It's easy to see the tendencies on display there, much like it is in the WSJ or, of course, Fox News, the Blaze, OAN, or whatever (I don't watch any of these things anywhere on this spectrum; I just see things on Twitter that make it easy to discern where they stand merely by looking at the occasional headline). E.g., if someone didn't think WSJ skewed at least a tad to the right, they'd be nuts. All this just makes sense in terms of where journalists come from, what they're rewarded for, their political donations, etc. On the extremes, both "sides" have their echo chambers, since that's what draws loyal/repeat viewers who pump up ratings and buy the products and services offered in ads through those media. Some people refer to the "mainstream" media because those sources grandma would call "the news" skew left but are considered mainstream, whereas those that skew to the right usually are dismissed as right-wing propaganda with output that Flat would use to fertilize his BIL's farm with.

BTW, just search for something like "media bias chart" and a bunch of Google images search results will show you what I'm talking about. One can pick at some of the classifications but the principle doesn't seem legitimately controversial.

I absolutely agree that the "mainstream" media tilts left. I also firmly believe that conservative media has no desire to tell the truth and is willing to promote brazen falsehoods to promote an anti-left agenda with no regard for the harm that it is doing to our country.

When I hear Republicans try to play down what happened on January 6th.....which they are trying to do....it tells me that the truth no longer matters and it's all about #winning and #triggerlibtards. I've been a registered Republican for over 30 years but I am going to switch to independent this year. I can no longer support the blatant lies and falsehoods that the GOP promotes. The "mainstream" media does tilt left and does sometimes promote propaganda that I don't like, but it's far better than what I seeing come from the other side. I have conservative friends that are getting more and more radicalized by the BS being promoted by the far right. The anger and pettiness that I see is disappointing, moreso when you realize that their lives are great and the things that have them outraged have no impact on them.

FWIW, I'm not some parrot for the left. I have issues with several liberal priorities. I don't want to see the left with too much power.....but I'm disgusted with the GOP right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: longtimecoug
I'll shortcut it - listen to the Weinstein podcast from the 1:00:00 mark.

If you still want to go with the sword of Ride or Die with Vaccine, that's your own personal choice (which I've said all along). But if it's not, there are esteemed scholars, researchers and scientists who take a skeptical if not absolutely contrary view of all this and their voices and studies should be carefully considered.

None of this has been vetted by long term research. A drug like ivermectin has - but for whatever reason, big pharma is hell bent on pushing their current vaccines instead. The Weinsteins dig deep on this including asking what the motive is (mostly likely financial gain).

But if your position is trust in that which is being pushed from on high, that's fine too. But that's not science in any way shape or form. Science is questioning and testing hypotheses with actual results.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NMBRCRNCHR
I'll shortcut it - listen to the Weinstein podcast from the 1:00:00 mark.

If you still want to go with the sword of Ride or Die with Vaccine, that's your own personal choice (which I've said all along). But if it's not, there are esteemed scholars, researchers and scientists who take a skeptical if not absolutely contrary view of all this and their voices and studies should be carefully considered.

None of this has been vetted by long term research. A drug like ivermectin has - but for whatever reason, big pharma is hell bent on pushing their current vaccines instead. The Weinsteins dig deep on this including asking what the motive is (mostly likely financial gain).

But if your position is trust in that which is being pushed from on high, that's fine too. But that's not science in any way shape or form. Science is questioning and testing hypotheses with actual results.
When I did a search for ivermectin....the first hit was an article posted by the FDA saying that ivermectin shouldn't be used for COVID. The article mentions that ivermectin is a drug designed to kill parasitic worms....not viruses and it says that ivermectin MIGHT be useful as a complementary drug in concert with other drugs designed to actual fight viruses but not by itself.

Of course, facts don't matter these days and some crackpot rando with a Ph.d in transphobia undoubtedly is saying that ivermectin is great.....but the truth is that if it really was great....it would be getting used to control the virus outside the US and it isn't. I'm always amazed at how much power that people assume that the "libs" have over the rest of the world. I can't imagine going through life assuming that the rest of the world is subjecting itself to the virus just to stick it to conservative Americans, but that's what a lot of people on the right seem to think.
 
I absolutely agree that the "mainstream" media tilts left. I also firmly believe that conservative media has no desire to tell the truth and is willing to promote brazen falsehoods to promote an anti-left agenda with no regard for the harm that it is doing to our country.

When I hear Republicans try to play down what happened on January 6th.....which they are trying to do....it tells me that the truth no longer matters and it's all about #winning and #triggerlibtards. I've been a registered Republican for over 30 years but I am going to switch to independent this year. I can no longer support the blatant lies and falsehoods that the GOP promotes. The "mainstream" media does tilt left and does sometimes promote propaganda that I don't like, but it's far better than what I seeing come from the other side. I have conservative friends that are getting more and more radicalized by the BS being promoted by the far right. The anger and pettiness that I see is disappointing, moreso when you realize that their lives are great and the things that have them outraged have no impact on them.

FWIW, I'm not some parrot for the left. I have issues with several liberal priorities. I don't want to see the left with too much power.....but I'm disgusted with the GOP right now.


Uhh, like Russian collusion(nothing burger)? Ukrainian phone call?(Ukraine released info a few days ago they actually paid Biden 900k), Hillarys deleted emails?(wiped the hard drives).
People were fed BS by CNN and MSNBC and it only got worse with Trump in office.

Folks were "let in" on Jan 6th, there is video proof of it. Trump wanted the national guard there and Pelosi and the mayor said no.

Gain of function research? The NIH and EcoHealth funding? The more and more scientists that come out saying their needs to be investigations done on the gain of function research with Covid19 the more I believe it was released on purpose. It's easy to cover your eyes and yell out conspiracy theorist, but if you want to take the easy road go for it.
 
When I did a search for ivermectin....the first hit was an article posted by the FDA saying that ivermectin shouldn't be used for COVID. The article mentions that ivermectin is a drug designed to kill parasitic worms....not viruses and it says that ivermectin MIGHT be useful as a complementary drug in concert with other drugs designed to actual fight viruses but not by itself.

Of course, facts don't matter these days and some crackpot rando with a Ph.d in transphobia undoubtedly is saying that ivermectin is great.....but the truth is that if it really was great....it would be getting used to control the virus outside the US and it isn't. I'm always amazed at how much power that people assume that the "libs" have over the rest of the world. I can't imagine going through life assuming that the rest of the world is subjecting itself to the virus just to stick it to conservative Americans, but that's what a lot of people on the right seem to think.
I didn't say ivermectin works in treating covid - and obviously by the timing of your response, you didn't listen to the podcast either. Because they don't either with certainty. What they say is that it should be tested as a possible method of treating COVID as the long-term side effects of the drug are known. The long term side effects of the current vaccines are not.

Has anyone else not questioned why a boner drug commercial consists of approximately 50% of the spot listing potential side effects - but none of the COVID vaccines say jack about side effects? Doesn't that seem just a little odd? Just a bit?
 
Something liberal people should be able to admit as well. Channels and sites like yahoo and CNN rang coronavirus out like a bar rag for every last nickel. A 17 year old morbidly obese girl with advanced leukemia dies with Covid and they write and article with the headline “Covid killing teens in CA”. No mention of comorbidities and illnesses. Every singe anomaly is presented as rule rather than exception. They are no longer news sites, they are trying to make every cent and with shitty faux headlines. They relish their power to influence society not report news.
The way in which you simply dismiss any death is absolutely repulsive.
 
I didn't say ivermectin works in treating covid - and obviously by the timing of your response, you didn't listen to the podcast either. Because they don't either with certainty. What they say is that it should be tested as a possible method of treating COVID as the long-term side effects of the drug are known. The long term side effects of the current vaccines are not.

Has anyone else not questioned why a boner drug commercial consists of approximately 50% of the spot listing potential side effects - but none of the COVID vaccines say jack about side effects? Doesn't that seem just a little odd? Just a bit?
How often do you hear commercials for side effects of the flu vaccine? Or measles?

Of course you continue to act in bad faith comparing apples to oranges and pretending to be profound. Stop being a rube.
 
How often do you hear commercials for side effects of the flu vaccine? Or measles?

Of course you continue to act in bad faith comparing apples to oranges and pretending to be profound. Stop being a rube.
You're pretty quick on the trigger with name-calling. That really shows quite the intellect and ability to engage in civil discussion.

Was your other handle the one who wanted to build a stadium in Ellensburg?

As to commercials for measles and flu - again, both those have decades of studies and are administered by medical professionals who, presumably have read the clinical data. And, when was the last measle vaccine commercial on TV and why would it be exempt from the same standards as any other drug marketed for profit?
 
The way in which you simply dismiss any death is absolutely repulsive.
You interpreted it as me dismissing death. There is a reason I have been fully vaccinated, wear a mask, and in good faith try to stay away from those that cold be effected. I’m not sure how my comment about the news and how they USE people to bolster their pockets in disingenuous ways means I dismissed the death. The young girl tragically died of leukemia and a severely depressed immune system along with Covid. Give me a button that can make it so and I’ll bring her back in full health so no one is hurt. But the news shouldn’t be able to use her story to imply Covid is suddenly killing teens en masse, while leaving out critical info. That is sickening and unfair and 90% of people aren’t smart enough to discern what is being typed and what it means. That is merely one example of 1000s just just involving Covid. The majority of all people who write published articles about it have no place offering analysis or insights into anything they speak of, yet they serve it up like it’s gospel.
 
You're pretty quick on the trigger with name-calling. That really shows quite the intellect and ability to engage in civil discussion.

Was your other handle the one who wanted to build a stadium in Ellensburg?

As to commercials for measles and flu - again, both those have decades of studies and are administered by medical professionals who, presumably have read the clinical data. And, when was the last measle vaccine commercial on TV and why would it be exempt from the same standards as any other drug marketed for profit?
11... the reason there is no warning label is because vaccines are built on a platform that has history . If there are side effects they usually happen within 6 weeks and the study went 8 weeks to make sure . So the basics have been tested over time.

Second, they aren’t making money on the manufacturing of the drug . So that component is taken out. The scientists did it for Noble reasons . The companies made huge money because of their stock price. That is their financial incentive.
 
Last edited:
Uhh, like Russian collusion(nothing burger)? Ukrainian phone call?(Ukraine released info a few days ago they actually paid Biden 900k), Hillarys deleted emails?(wiped the hard drives).
People were fed BS by CNN and MSNBC and it only got worse with Trump in office.

Folks were "let in" on Jan 6th, there is video proof of it. Trump wanted the national guard there and Pelosi and the mayor said no.

Gain of function research? The NIH and EcoHealth funding? The more and more scientists that come out saying their needs to be investigations done on the gain of function research with Covid19 the more I believe it was released on purpose. It's easy to cover your eyes and yell out conspiracy theorist, but if you want to take the easy road go for it.
JC ... thanks for the perspective . Was that Antifa breaking windows , pulling gas masks off the police ?

But it reminds of the the so called Iranian hostage crisis . The students simply wanted a tour of the embassy . They went in with no guns , no one was hurt . And the so called hostages were guests .

The other fake news is just that of what happened .
 
  • Like
Reactions: longtimecoug
So much fire in these posts, its hard to compete by throwing more fire at it. But here we go, I will not be getting a vaccine but I am not an "Anti-Vaxxer" according to arrogant elitists like wazzucougs96. I got the Rona last month which has allowed my body to develop anti-bodies naturally. Would you go get a flu shot right after you got over having the Flu? Um no you wouldn't and any azzhat on here saying they would, is only doing so to fulfill the radical leftist prophecy. And to those toe-sucking, nipple-pinching Fauci worshipers hanging on his every word, ever since the idea of him green-lighting funding to Wuhan labs via a non-profit known as EchoHealthAlliance, he has been trying to divert attention off himself by now suggesting the reason why "people of color" are so greatly affected by Covid is because of systemic racism. I mean, WTF. I'm wondering what isn't racist anymore. The left is hellbent on strawman'n every detail in our society as some form of racism.
 
I didn't say ivermectin works in treating covid - and obviously by the timing of your response, you didn't listen to the podcast either. Because they don't either with certainty. What they say is that it should be tested as a possible method of treating COVID as the long-term side effects of the drug are known. The long term side effects of the current vaccines are not.

Has anyone else not questioned why a boner drug commercial consists of approximately 50% of the spot listing potential side effects - but none of the COVID vaccines say jack about side effects? Doesn't that seem just a little odd? Just a bit?
Just had my first shot. Not a single word from the phamacist, no disclaimer, no nothing. My wife had to sign away her rights and acknowledge the possibility of death for a drug routinely used for dental care - but not a peep about anything on the Moderna vaccine.

That being said, I took the risk knowingly so that I could selfishly go on vacation later this year without a bunch of hassle. My 14 year old kid, though, will not be taking an untested drug. I'm thinking we'll suddenly find religion and have an objection, since they're allowing that.
 
Just had my first shot. Not a single word from the phamacist, no disclaimer, no nothing. My wife had to sign away her rights and acknowledge the possibility of death for a drug routinely used for dental care - but not a peep about anything on the Moderna vaccine.

That being said, I took the risk knowingly so that I could selfishly go on vacation later this year without a bunch of hassle. My 14 year old kid, though, will not be taking an untested drug. I'm thinking we'll suddenly find religion and have an objection, since they're allowing that.

An acknowledgment of skepticism?!?! You RUBE!!! :)

Kind of surprised nobody has asked whether 11 has been vaccinated in all this....lots of assumptions and names called though. Which is nice, I suppose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BleedCrimsonandGray
11... the reason there is no warning label is because vaccines are built on a platform that has history . If there are side effects they usually happen within 6 weeks and the study went 8 weeks to make sure . So the basics have been tested over time.

Second, they aren’t making money on the manufacturing of the drug . So that component is taken out. The scientists did it for Noble reasons . The companies made huge money because of their stock price. That is their financial incentive.
The hell they aren't. You think big pharma did the research out of nobility? Or perhaps it was the the billions of dollars 45 paid them to do so?
 
An acknowledgment of skepticism?!?! You RUBE!!! :)

Kind of surprised nobody has asked whether 11 has been vaccinated in all this....lots of assumptions and names called though. Which is nice, I suppose.
Just give us your social media info so we can see the picture of you with your sleeve rolled up with your card in your hand... oh, you virtuous citizen you.
 
Just give us your social media info so we can see the picture of you with your sleeve rolled up with your card in your hand... oh, you virtuous citizen you.

More of a temporary profile pic filter/border guy. There's so many things to be virtuous about one has to stay nimble to the cause/outrage du jour.
 
The hell they aren't. You think big pharma did the research out of nobility? Or perhaps it was the the billions of dollars 45 paid them to do so?

Also interesting now we are being primed to protect against 'variants'. The SaaS model for continual upgrades moves to pharmaceuticals....

Nah - nothing to see here. It's about the altruism and goodness. No cash involved whatsoever.

(I typed that with a straight face, btw).
 
So much fire in these posts, its hard to compete by throwing more fire at it. But here we go, I will not be getting a vaccine but I am not an "Anti-Vaxxer" according to arrogant elitists like wazzucougs96. I got the Rona last month which has allowed my body to develop anti-bodies naturally. Would you go get a flu shot right after you got over having the Flu? Um no you wouldn't and any azzhat on here saying they would, is only doing so to fulfill the radical leftist prophecy. And to those toe-sucking, nipple-pinching Fauci worshipers hanging on his every word, ever since the idea of him green-lighting funding to Wuhan labs via a non-profit known as EchoHealthAlliance, he has been trying to divert attention off himself by now suggesting the reason why "people of color" are so greatly affected by Covid is because of systemic racism. I mean, WTF. I'm wondering what isn't racist anymore. The left is hellbent on strawman'n every detail in our society as some form of racism.The hell they aren't. You think big pharma did the research out of nobility? Or perhaps it the the billions of dollars 45 paid them to do so?
The hell they aren't. You think big pharma did the research out of nobility? Or perhaps it was the the billions of dollars 45 paid them to do so?
First Biontech and Moderna aren’t considered Big Pharma . Moderna over a year ago was I believe below 20 dollars a share. Same with Biontech.

Second , I will confess I thought as you and they would make a killing making the drug , until probably early June of last year . Went over to a friends pool and the ceo from one of the top 10 bio techs was there . I said the exact same thing you did . He corrected me. He told me the companies aren’t making money on the research (despite the billions from “45/46”)

He said it is a bad look if they pull what the dude who bought epiPen .There is a National pandemic . He said the money is in the stock price . Sort of like everyone pitching in after the “Germans” bombed Pearl Harbor.

So maybe my friend is full of crap . About a month later I had to drop something off at his house and he invited me in despite having guests . I met a guy named Dr Kenneth Frazier, and during a brief convo before I left he said basically the same thing.

Big pharma , the scientists that work for them know as probably everyone does our slice of the world doesn’t get back to normal it doesn’t work unless people are vaccinated and we get control over the pandemic . But I guess they could be bsing me .
 
So much fire in these posts, its hard to compete by throwing more fire at it. But here we go, I will not be getting a vaccine but I am not an "Anti-Vaxxer" according to arrogant elitists like wazzucougs96. I got the Rona last month which has allowed my body to develop anti-bodies naturally. Would you go get a flu shot right after you got over having the Flu? Um no you wouldn't and any azzhat on here saying they would, is only doing so to fulfill the radical leftist prophecy. And to those toe-sucking, nipple-pinching Fauci worshipers hanging on his every word, ever since the idea of him green-lighting funding to Wuhan labs via a non-profit known as EchoHealthAlliance, he has been trying to divert attention off himself by now suggesting the reason why "people of color" are so greatly affected by Covid is because of systemic racism. I mean, WTF. I'm wondering what isn't racist anymore. The left is hellbent on strawman'n every detail in our society as some form of racism.
CiS, just a couple things. Not arguing; simply clarifying. First, you are right that having had covid gives you the best possible protection for the variant that you had. No question on that point, though it is not 100% effective. A few people have actually gotten covid (what appears to be the same variant) more than once, though the symptoms seem to usually be less the second time, as is also the case with those who get covid after being vaccinated. The two questions that remain after having covid have to do with protection against other variants, and the length of time that your T cells will maintain that excellent level of protection. The vaccines act as a booster shot to help with the length of time question, and they provide a less thorough but broader level of protection across the variant spectrum.

World wide, the race is to get people vaccinated in order to shut down variant production before we end up with a variant that can circumvent either your natural immunity to your variant, or circumvent the vaccine immunity. I think the consequences of that sort of mutation are obvious, so to prevent that we need to get as many vaccinated as possible, not just here but world wide.
 
  • Like
Reactions: COUGinNCW
Also interesting now we are being primed to protect against 'variants'. The SaaS model for continual upgrades moves to pharmaceuticals....

Nah - nothing to see here. It's about the altruism and goodness. No cash involved whatsoever.

(I typed that with a straight face, btw).
I hear Phizer will sell you a personal protection suite for only $500/seat for the home version. 1 year sub only, and of course support is extra.
 
Also interesting now we are being primed to protect against 'variants'. The SaaS model for continual upgrades moves to pharmaceuticals....

Nah - nothing to see here. It's about the altruism and goodness. No cash involved whatsoever.

(I typed that with a straight face, btw).
What did your insurance pay when you got vaccinated ? What was your co-pay. They don’t even care if you have insurance or not , and my insurance wasn’t billed .
 
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/m/6b90d18c-2de0-33da-8086-71778d3bd288/joe-rogan-who-makes-100.html


Here’s a perfect example off yahoo. Take an exception, and use it to make a point to hammer home your narrative ideals. How many guys like Joe Rogan have made 100 million USD? .01% or less? Why the f use him as evidence in your point when he represents < than .01% of the population you are speaking about. It shows lack of understanding of everything other than identity politics and pushing a narrative. This is why news sites get reclassified in MSM. Coming from a guy who aligns more heavily on “I don’t use msm word” side.
 
I absolutely agree that the "mainstream" media tilts left. I also firmly believe that conservative media has no desire to tell the truth and is willing to promote brazen falsehoods to promote an anti-left agenda with no regard for the harm that it is doing to our country.

When I hear Republicans try to play down what happened on January 6th.....which they are trying to do....it tells me that the truth no longer matters and it's all about #winning and #triggerlibtards. I've been a registered Republican for over 30 years but I am going to switch to independent this year. I can no longer support the blatant lies and falsehoods that the GOP promotes. The "mainstream" media does tilt left and does sometimes promote propaganda that I don't like, but it's far better than what I seeing come from the other side. I have conservative friends that are getting more and more radicalized by the BS being promoted by the far right. The anger and pettiness that I see is disappointing, moreso when you realize that their lives are great and the things that have them outraged have no impact on them.

FWIW, I'm not some parrot for the left. I have issues with several liberal priorities. I don't want to see the left with too much power.....but I'm disgusted with the GOP right now.

I understand and appreciate all of this. Unfortunately, I think the polarization and what is fair to call BS from both extremes, but sounds especially egregious on the right, contributes to the problems. Both the left-wing and far-right voices are contribute to increased polarization in society, and perhaps even radicalization, for different reasons. Take the typical Kansan you are having to deal with. They see inflammatory headlines or a mix of truth/BS from CNN or whatever, which pisses them off since it's designed to be biased and inflammatory, and then they listen to Hannity or whoever these guys are, purveying biased and inflammatory content, to really get them worked up about it. Some also goes the other way. It's not like we can or should have state media, of course, but the for-profit model naturally lends to this increasing polarization in society. Then people go on social media to get news/info, and all of that is filtered via algorithm and designed to keep people viewing content/ads/follows/accounts they agree with.
 
I understand and appreciate all of this. Unfortunately, I think the polarization and what is fair to call BS from both extremes, but sounds especially egregious on the right, contributes to the problems. Both the left-wing and far-right voices are contribute to increased polarization in society, and perhaps even radicalization, for different reasons. Take the typical Kansan you are having to deal with. They see inflammatory headlines or a mix of truth/BS from CNN or whatever, which pisses them off since it's designed to be biased and inflammatory, and then they listen to Hannity or whoever these guys are, purveying biased and inflammatory content, to really get them worked up about it. Some also goes the other way. It's not like we can or should have state media, of course, but the for-profit model naturally lends to this increasing polarization in society. Then people go on social media to get news/info, and all of that is filtered via algorithm and designed to keep people viewing content/ads/follows/accounts they agree with.
Add to that the instant and unfiltered internet access of any with a keyboard.
 
So now is using “mainstream media” essentially the M-word to those keeping track of such foolishness as the redefinition of words?
 
Would you go get a flu shot right after you got over having the Flu? Um no you wouldn't and any azzhat on here saying they would, is only doing so to fulfill the radical leftist prophecy.
Yes, I would. Because I was infected by 1 strain, but the flu vaccine protects against 3 or 4 (depending on which one you get). Being infected by one strain of flu doesn't necessarily protect against others....especially if you had influenza A and later encounter influenza B. The flu vaccine gives you more protection against flu than an actual infection does.

However...in the case of COVID, while there are something like 1,800 recognized variants (and counting), so far there's no clear evidence that vaccination is any more protective than infection. So I'm not convinced that there's a need for those who have been infected to get the shot too.

And I'm not a leftist. The far left and the far right are equally closed-minded, equally annoying, and equally wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Observer11
CiS, just a couple things. Not arguing; simply clarifying. First, you are right that having had covid gives you the best possible protection for the variant that you had. No question on that point, though it is not 100% effective. A few people have actually gotten covid (what appears to be the same variant) more than once, though the symptoms seem to usually be less the second time, as is also the case with those who get covid after being vaccinated. The two questions that remain after having covid have to do with protection against other variants, and the length of time that your T cells will maintain that excellent level of protection. The vaccines act as a booster shot to help with the length of time question, and they provide a less thorough but broader level of protection across the variant spectrum.

World wide, the race is to get people vaccinated in order to shut down variant production before we end up with a variant that can circumvent either your natural immunity to your variant, or circumvent the vaccine immunity. I think the consequences of that sort of mutation are obvious, so to prevent that we need to get as many vaccinated as possible, not just here but world wide.
A good friend of my daughter who is a Pac 12 athlete went to Florida last summer and this spring. Both times she got Covid. What I nor does the family know is if it is different strains, but the friend does have long-haulers and may impact their career.
 
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/m/6b90d18c-2de0-33da-8086-71778d3bd288/joe-rogan-who-makes-100.html


Here’s a perfect example off yahoo. Take an exception, and use it to make a point to hammer home your narrative ideals. How many guys like Joe Rogan have made 100 million USD? .01% or less? Why the f use him as evidence in your point when he represents < than .01% of the population you are speaking about. It shows lack of understanding of everything other than identity politics and pushing a narrative. This is why news sites get reclassified in MSM. Coming from a guy who aligns more heavily on “I don’t use msm word” side.


Thats actually hilarious. Joe Rogan says woke culture is trying to silence white men. Now the woke culture is freaking out and trying to silence Joe Rogan for what he said.

Clown world.

Cancel culture is cancer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Observer11
Thats actually hilarious. Joe Rogan says woke culture is trying to silence white men. Now the woke culture is freaking out and trying to silence Joe Rogan for what he said.

Clown world.

Cancel culture is cancer.
It’s not canceling it is boycotting .
 
ADVERTISEMENT