Latest Coronavirus - Yikes

#105,583
#105,583
hog88 said:
How so?
Click to expand...

44570355.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40 and StarRaider
#105,584
#105,584
hog88 said:
Considering their numbers they cannot claim to have been effect in their efforts so they have no compelling interests in continuing their restrictions on travelers.
Click to expand...

So, because their numbers are bad, that proves they don't have an interest in reducing the spread...

That's a fascinating legal argument, Mr. Darrow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jaybird_1981
#105,585
#105,585
hog88 said:
How so?
Click to expand...
A legal driver's license is a method of verification of one's age, and thus proves they are able to buy alcohol.

A legal vaccine card verifies one's vaccination status and proves they are safe to travel.
 
#105,587
#105,587
Tyler Durden said:
A legal driver's license is a method of verification of one's age, and thus proves they are able to buy alcohol.

A legal vaccine card verifies one's vaccination status and proves they are safe to travel.
Click to expand...

being vaccinated doesn't mean you aren't Covid positive or a carrier of any other disease that makes you unsafe to travel whereas if you meet the age requirement you by definition meet the age requirement

those Texas democrats proved that being vaccinated doesn't mean you are safe to travel
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol, NorthDallas40, StarRaider and 1 other person
#105,588
#105,588
bamawriter said:
Because she chose to produce a fake one. You aren't required to have a driver's license to open a bank account, but if you choose to provide a phony license you have committed fraud.
Click to expand...

I guess the legal question is that in the case of the bank it's an actual law that opening one with false documents is fraud. is there a similar law that says presenting false medical information in such a case is criminal fraud?

IOW, there's the concept of fraud and there are instances where false documentation is specified as illegal (eg. you can misrepresent yourself on social media or whatever and while philosophically fraud it's not illegal)
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider and hog88
#105,589
#105,589
volinbham said:
being vaccinated doesn't mean you aren't Covid positive or a carrier of any other disease that makes you unsafe to travel whereas if you meet the age requirement you by definition meet the age requirement

those Texas democrats proved that being vaccinated doesn't mean you are safe to travel
Click to expand...
It means you are far less likely to get infected and spread the virus to the people in whatever location you're traveling to than unvaccinated people. It's a risk mitigation effort.
 
#105,590
#105,590
Tyler Durden said:
It means you are far less likely to get infected and spread the virus to the people in whatever location you're traveling to than unvaccinated people. It's a risk mitigation effort.
Click to expand...

less likely doesn't equal safe (as the Texas Democrats showed us) whereas your age does qualify you; it's not like if your DL says you are 25 you are far more likely to be old enough - it by definition guarantees it.

To Hog's point, a vaccination card doesn't guarantee you are safe to travel. It is not proof whereas the DL is proof
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, LouderVol, NorthDallas40 and 2 others
#105,591
#105,591
volinbham said:
I guess the legal question is that in the case of the bank it's an actual law that opening one with false documents is fraud. is there a similar law that says presenting false medical information in such a case is criminal fraud?

IOW, there's the concept of fraud and there are instances where false documentation is specified as illegal (eg. you can misrepresent yourself on social media or whatever and while philosophically fraud it's not illegal)
Click to expand...

The story I read about this particular tourist indicate that what she did was a misdemeanor. That means its has to be codified somewhere. Again, I'm not bored enough to look into whether these regulations are a result of an executive order or an act of the legislature.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volinbham
#105,592
#105,592
bamawriter said:
So, because their numbers are bad, that proves they don't have an interest in reducing the spread...

That's a fascinating legal argument, Mr. Darrow.
Click to expand...

It proves that their methods have been ineffective and they have no compelling interest in continuing to infringe on citizens freedom of movement.
 
#105,594
#105,594
bamawriter said:
Because she chose to produce a fake one. You aren't required to have a driver's license to open a bank account, but if you choose to provide a phony license you have committed fraud.
Click to expand...

You are required to produce a valid ID when opening a bank account. But again you are trying to tie completely different subjects together.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#105,595
#105,595
hog88 said:
It proves that their methods have been ineffective and they have no compelling interest in continuing to infringe on citizens freedom of movement.
Click to expand...

You can make a case for the former but not the latter. The relative effectiveness of the governments response does not have any bearing on whether or not a compelling interest exists.
 
#105,596
#105,596
volinbham said:
They could have dealt with #2 by choosing a bigger initial sample but #3 is the head scratcher - why dose at a lower rate then recommended?
Click to expand...
Almost like they were trying to get a certain outcome...

And they only prescribed it for 2 days when most people that have used it have recovered in 3-5 days.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mrMet
#105,597
#105,597
volinbham said:
Good news: no safety issues with using Ivermectin.

Bad news: no appreciable impact in this study.

Some important limitations:

The fact that no significant differences were found in the primary end point of hospitalizations in this study may be due to different factors. The first is that ivermectin is not effective in this group of patients to prevent hospitalizations. The second is that the IVERCORCOVID19 trial is underpowered because the hospitalization rate was lower than expected when performed in the sample size calculation, as well as the fact that an ambitious reduction of 50–70% was estimated of primary end point. Thirdly, the dose of ivermectin adjusted to the weight of the patients was low, which on the one hand could corroborate that these doses are not effective, but alternatively could provide the opportunity to study the efficacy of higher doses of ivermectin.

#2 - Sampling issues: 35 (6.99%) required hospitalization at any point from randomization to their end of study visit. Of these, 14 (5.60%) belonged to the ivermectin group and 21 (8.37%) to the placebo group.

#3 - Dosing issues: Secondly, the mean dose of ivermectin was 192.37 μg/kg/day (SD ± 24.56), which is below the doses proposed as probably effective [20, 33].

They could have dealt with #2 by choosing a bigger initial sample but #3 is the head scratcher - why dose at a lower rate then recommended?
Click to expand...
Problem with #3 is that doses used in these studies for ivermectin vary widely. However even if high doses are used it is unlikely that you will achieve antiviral activity that is seen when tested in the lab.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13102818.2020.1775118
Development of a Minimal Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetic Model to Simulate Lung Exposure in Humans Following Oral Administration of Ivermectin for COVID-19 Drug Repurposing - ScienceDirect
https://ascpt.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cpt.1889
It may have anti-inflammatory benefit rather than antiviral but it sounds like those who are pushing the drug have no idea on the correct dose
 
#105,598
#105,598
bamawriter said:
You can make a case for the former but not the latter. The relative effectiveness of the governments response does not have any bearing on whether or not a compelling interest exists.
Click to expand...

You got me there as this point has been proven and upheld in courts time and time again. Multiple examples of completely ineffective .gov responses that they feel compelled to continue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
#105,599
#105,599
hog88 said:
You are required to produce a valid ID when opening a bank account. But again you are trying to tie completely different subjects together.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. You simply want them to be different.

But, if you want evidence that this particular hair won't split: if you intentionally furnish an incorrect street address to a bank, you have committed fraud. And no, your street address does not have to match the one on your government ID.
 
#105,600
#105,600
hog88 said:
You got me there as this point has been proven and upheld in courts time and time again. Multiple examples of completely ineffective .gov responses that they feel compelled to continue.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The compelling interest test is a legal argument. What the government ought to do in response is a political argument.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top