Latest Coronavirus - Yikes

#118,026
#118,026
SpaceCoastVol said:
And nothing else matters. I had Fauci's Flu in Dec 2020. I haven't even had a cold since then and I am usually good for at least 2/year. You can attribute it to masks. I will attribute it to people washing their hands.... more to the point... that I am washing my hands more.
Click to expand...

Anecdotal but I’ve had the same experience. Knock on wood but I have as long of a run as I can remember without a real cold, over the last 2 years. I did have Covid, once for sure, quite likely twice. No symptoms either time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol and SpaceCoastVol
#118,028
#118,028
allvol123 said:
Anecdotal but I’ve had the same experience. Knock on wood but I have as long of a run as I can remember without a real cold, over the last 2 years. I did have Covid, once for sure, quite likely twice. No symptoms either time.
Click to expand...
I did catch a dude coming out of the toilet at the gym after talking a **** and walking straight out... I called him out and he said. "I rinsed hands". So stupidity is returning, but masks won't help that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mr.checkerboards and allvol123
#118,031
#118,031
LouderVol said:
The science they themselves dont follow...

The science that is going to change in 15 days?
Click to expand...
The science that has never shown that masks have an actual impact on spread? The science that shows even the "vaccine" hasn't had a significant impact on spread? The science that shows that none of these measures they've implemented have done diddly squat to stop any kind of COVID spread or outbreaks? That science?

Methinks our friend here belongs in the Democrat "Settled Science™" crowd whose definition of "science" has nothing to do with, well, actual science, but more to do with their own fragility, fear, and desire to dictate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#118,033
#118,033
volinbham said:
I find the author's arguments about the meaning of "sanitation" to be harder to justify than those of the judge.
Click to expand...
My favorite blurb was this one:
The most likely reading of her opinion, in other words, is that she simply disagreed with the Biden administration’s masking policy, and concocted a justification for striking it down. That approach should trouble anyone who cares about democracy, regardless of what they think about mandatory masking on airplanes.
Click to expand...

...as if Vox wasn't advocating for judges to do this every time Trump did literally anything. Her ruling had nothing to do with whether she "disagreed", anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider, SpaceCoastVol, Rickyvol77 and 2 others
#118,038
#118,038
ButchPlz said:
My favorite blurb was this one:


...as if Vox wasn't advocating for judges to do this every time Trump did literally anything. Her ruling had nothing to do with whether she "disagreed", anyway.
Click to expand...
Anyone who "cares about democracy" should be more concerned about what they've watched governments worldwide do for the last two years. A lot of the population seems to be ok with shelving democracy in the name of safety.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SlipKidVol, mr.checkerboards, ButchPlz and 2 others
#118,039
#118,039
So I see the WH position on the mask mandate ruling is to defer completely to the CDC. If CDC says they are needed they will appeal the ruling; if CDC doesn't say that they won't appeal.

This is putting the CDC in charge of policy rather than considering the CDC's recommendation along with OTHER factors to make an executive decision. It's the same thing with Title 42.

Being a leader is taking information from multiple perspectives and choosing the best course among many compromised options. Deferring to a single perspective isn't leadership; it's the opposite.

Imagine saying "we'll invade Iran if the DoD recommends it" or "we'll stop domestic oil production for a year if the EPA recommends it".
 
  • Like
Reactions: RavinDave, NorthDallas40, SlipKidVol and 19 others
#118,040
#118,040
volinbham said:
So I see the WH position on the mask mandate ruling is to defer completely to the CDC. If CDC says they are needed they will appeal the ruling; if CDC doesn't say that they won't appeal.

This is putting the CDC in charge of policy rather than considering the CDC's recommendation along with OTHER factors to make an executive decision. It's the same thing with Title 42.

Being a leader is taking information from multiple perspectives and choosing the best course among many compromised options. Deferring to a single perspective isn't leadership; it's the opposite.

Imagine saying "we'll invade Iran if the DoD recommends it" or "we'll stop domestic oil production for a year if the EPA recommends it".
Click to expand...


What scares me is the WHO Pandemic Treaty. I do not like the idea of a group of unelected individuals to be given this amount of power on a global scale.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SlipKidVol, CagleMtnVol and davethevol
#118,041
#118,041
volinbham said:
So I see the WH position on the mask mandate ruling is to defer completely to the CDC. If CDC says they are needed they will appeal the ruling; if CDC doesn't say that they won't appeal.

This is putting the CDC in charge of policy rather than considering the CDC's recommendation along with OTHER factors to make an executive decision. It's the same thing with Title 42.

Being a leader is taking information from multiple perspectives and choosing the best course among many compromised options. Deferring to a single perspective isn't leadership; it's the opposite.

Imagine saying "we'll invade Iran if the DoD recommends it" or "we'll stop domestic oil production for a year if the EPA recommends it".
Click to expand...
This presidency is among the worst (in terms of leadership) I have ever seen or experienced in my life or career, and that's saying a lot considering I am called into dysfunctional organizations specifically to help iron them out. What they're doing is exactly what lifelong government bureaucrats do, which is pass the buck, never take blame, and don't make decisions that matter (but make decisions that make you feel good).

It would be great if the decisions they made that made them feel good were unimpactful, but these people live in a bubble and think everyone is like them and has the same needs and are perfectly willing to spend, do, spend, do whatever their feelings tell them to do. All this because apparently the American is simultaneously diverse but also a robot with the same wants and desires across the board.

I wish they'd make stupid decisions but not make those decisions with billions and billions in taxpayer dollars at stake. Or that they'd just do this stuff without printing billions more dollars and making it all worthless for all of us. They're literally playing Rome 2.0 with the constant dole.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol
#118,043
#118,043
volinbham said:
So I see the WH position on the mask mandate ruling is to defer completely to the CDC. If CDC says they are needed they will appeal the ruling; if CDC doesn't say that they won't appeal.

This is putting the CDC in charge of policy rather than considering the CDC's recommendation along with OTHER factors to make an executive decision. It's the same thing with Title 42.

Being a leader is taking information from multiple perspectives and choosing the best course among many compromised options. Deferring to a single perspective isn't leadership; it's the opposite.

Imagine saying "we'll invade Iran if the DoD recommends it" or "we'll stop domestic oil production for a year if the EPA recommends it".
Click to expand...

Are you surprised? Is there any doubt what the CDC will say?
 
#118,046
#118,046
85SugarVol said:
WHO Pandemic Treaty?
Click to expand...

It looks good on the surface. What worries me is its basically an agreement between approximately 70 countries (maybe more) who are agreeing to give the WHO the ultimate power and authority to provide guidelines etc. during a pandemic. Basically a global approach that all countries will adhere to. My questions and concerns are will our constitution now be overridden by the WHO during the next "pandemic".


WHO reaches draft consensus on future pandemic treaty

(PDF) A Guide to a pandemic treaty

https://academic.oup.com/ia/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ia/iiac023/6549855
 
#118,047
#118,047
VolinWayne said:
It looks good on the surface. What worries me is its basically an agreement between approximately 70 countries (maybe more) who are agreeing to give the WHO the ultimate power and authority to provide guidelines etc. during a pandemic. Basically a global approach that all countries will adhere to. My questions and concerns are will our constitution now be overridden by the WHO during the next "pandemic".


WHO reaches draft consensus on future pandemic treaty

(PDF) A Guide to a pandemic treaty

futility of the pandemic treaty: caught between globalism and statism
Click to expand...
Lol. Meaningless. WHO has no authority to tell the US d!ck Sh!t.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top