Latest Coronavirus - Yikes

#120,129
#120,129
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and davethevol
#120,130
#120,130
California Makes It Illegal for Doctors to Disagree With Politicians

Gov. Gavin Newsom recently signed California Assembly Bill 2098, making it the first state to attempt to censor what physicians can say about COVID-19 to their patients. This is a dangerous, and likely unconstitutional, effort that other states must resist.

The statute instructs that “It shall constitute unprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon to disseminate misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19, including false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.”

California law requires the Medical Board of California to take action — up to and including license revocation — against any licensed physician charged with unprofessional conduct. But under the First Amendment, content-based speech regulation by government entities is presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only if the government proves that it is narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests.

A 2018 Supreme Court case, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, held that professional speech — speech by licensed practitioners based on their expert knowledge and judgment — is protected by the First Amendment.

The statute clearly has constitutional problems in defining COVID “misinformation.” The law’s definition is “false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care.” This is ridiculously and likely unconstitutionally vague. As the Supreme Court noted, “Professionals might have a host of good-faith disagreements, both with each other and with the government, on many topics in their respective fields.”

Physicians who inform their young, healthy patients that the virus poses a minuscule risk of serious illness and death to them is providing truthful information, even though other practitioners or the government might claim that doing so is contrary to the standard of care.

Similarly, telling a parent as part of an informed-consent discussion that vaccines currently have minimal effectiveness in limiting COVID transmission and small benefits for healthy children, but that they also have incompletely characterized side effects, is not false information, even though the standard recommendation is that everyone should be vaccinated.

The statute does not specify who is the arbiter of “contemporary scientific consensus” on COVID.

Source: New York Post
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77, Rocky_Top_Vol13 and davethevol
#120,132
#120,132
VolinWayne said:
California Makes It Illegal for Doctors to Disagree With Politicians

Gov. Gavin Newsom recently signed California Assembly Bill 2098, making it the first state to attempt to censor what physicians can say about COVID-19 to their patients. This is a dangerous, and likely unconstitutional, effort that other states must resist.

The statute instructs that “It shall constitute unprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon to disseminate misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19, including false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.”

California law requires the Medical Board of California to take action — up to and including license revocation — against any licensed physician charged with unprofessional conduct. But under the First Amendment, content-based speech regulation by government entities is presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only if the government proves that it is narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests.

A 2018 Supreme Court case, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, held that professional speech — speech by licensed practitioners based on their expert knowledge and judgment — is protected by the First Amendment.

The statute clearly has constitutional problems in defining COVID “misinformation.” The law’s definition is “false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care.” This is ridiculously and likely unconstitutionally vague. As the Supreme Court noted, “Professionals might have a host of good-faith disagreements, both with each other and with the government, on many topics in their respective fields.”

Physicians who inform their young, healthy patients that the virus poses a minuscule risk of serious illness and death to them is providing truthful information, even though other practitioners or the government might claim that doing so is contrary to the standard of care.

Similarly, telling a parent as part of an informed-consent discussion that vaccines currently have minimal effectiveness in limiting COVID transmission and small benefits for healthy children, but that they also have incompletely characterized side effects, is not false information, even though the standard recommendation is that everyone should be vaccinated.

The statute does not specify who is the arbiter of “contemporary scientific consensus” on COVID.

Source: New York Post
Click to expand...
We laugh about California all of the time. At some point though, it will collapse in on itself.

And that won’t be a good day for anyone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol
#120,135
#120,135
Matt2496 said:
Today I have a sore throat and headache, feels like a usual cold.
Click to expand...

Earlier this week I was overly tired and then I ended up having a fever that lasted all of one day. I used it as an excuse to work on my property. I feel completely normal again 2 days later. (I definitely recommend a daily intake of Vitamin C, D, Zinc and Quercetin). General health practices that we have known for years are amazing!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol
#120,136
#120,136
Matt2496 said:
Today I have a sore throat and headache, feels like a usual cold.
Click to expand...
You ARE wearing 3 masks aren't you? Staying 60 feet away from the nearest human... and above all man, go get your boosters. You do realize that if you do you cant spread it. But regardless, I would make funeral arrangements so your family doesn't have to.

I always enjoyed your posts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman and VolinWayne
#120,141
#120,141
#120,142
#120,142
VolinWayne said:
California Makes It Illegal for Doctors to Disagree With Politicians

Gov. Gavin Newsom recently signed California Assembly Bill 2098, making it the first state to attempt to censor what physicians can say about COVID-19 to their patients. This is a dangerous, and likely unconstitutional, effort that other states must resist.

The statute instructs that “It shall constitute unprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon to disseminate misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19, including false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.”

California law requires the Medical Board of California to take action — up to and including license revocation — against any licensed physician charged with unprofessional conduct. But under the First Amendment, content-based speech regulation by government entities is presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only if the government proves that it is narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests.

A 2018 Supreme Court case, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, held that professional speech — speech by licensed practitioners based on their expert knowledge and judgment — is protected by the First Amendment.

The statute clearly has constitutional problems in defining COVID “misinformation.” The law’s definition is “false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care.” This is ridiculously and likely unconstitutionally vague. As the Supreme Court noted, “Professionals might have a host of good-faith disagreements, both with each other and with the government, on many topics in their respective fields.”

Physicians who inform their young, healthy patients that the virus poses a minuscule risk of serious illness and death to them is providing truthful information, even though other practitioners or the government might claim that doing so is contrary to the standard of care.

Similarly, telling a parent as part of an informed-consent discussion that vaccines currently have minimal effectiveness in limiting COVID transmission and small benefits for healthy children, but that they also have incompletely characterized side effects, is not false information, even though the standard recommendation is that everyone should be vaccinated.

The statute does not specify who is the arbiter of “contemporary scientific consensus” on COVID.

Source: New York Post
Click to expand...
1984 was just supposed to be a story, not a manual. Wrongthink is a real thing now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and SlipKidVol
#120,144
#120,144
Vaccine hesitancy amongst the sheeple???

Few Getting Updated COVID-19 Boosters Despite White House Pleas | ZeroHedge

About 14.8 million have received bivalent boosters made by Pfizer and Moderna, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data that was published Thursday shows. The Food and Drug Administration provided emergency use authorizations for both booster doses on Aug. 31 for people aged 12 and older, while it signed off on an emergency approval for children aged 5 to 11 this week.

Some 226 million people have received their primary vaccination series, CDC data shows. It means that about 6.5 percent of people who are eligible got the updated boosters, which were designed to target the Omicron variant and several of its subvariants.
 
#120,146
#120,146
Rasputin_Vol said:
Vaccine hesitancy amongst the sheeple???

Few Getting Updated COVID-19 Boosters Despite White House Pleas | ZeroHedge

About 14.8 million have received bivalent boosters made by Pfizer and Moderna, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data that was published Thursday shows. The Food and Drug Administration provided emergency use authorizations for both booster doses on Aug. 31 for people aged 12 and older, while it signed off on an emergency approval for children aged 5 to 11 this week.

Some 226 million people have received their primary vaccination series, CDC data shows. It means that about 6.5 percent of people who are eligible got the updated boosters, which were designed to target the Omicron variant and several of its subvariants.
Click to expand...
Well, when you get the shot and still get COVID anyway that's usually enough to raise questions for most.
 
#120,148
#120,148
How often have we read this?

A new subvariant of the novel-coronavirus called XBB dramatically announced itself earlier this week, in Singapore. New COVID-19 cases more than doubled in a day, from 4,700 on Monday to 11,700 on Tuesday—and XBB is almost certainly why. The same subvariant just appeared in Hong Kong, too.

A highly mutated descendant of the Omicron variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that drove a record wave of infections starting around a year ago, XBB is in many ways the worst form of the virus so far. It’s more contagious than any previous variant or subvariant. It also evades the antibodies from monoclonal therapies, potentially rendering a whole category of drugs ineffective as COVID treatments.

“It is likely the most immune-evasive and poses problems for current monoclonal antibody-based treatments and prevention strategy,” Amesh Adalja, a public-health expert at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told The Daily Beast.

That’s the bad news. The good news is that the new “bivalent” vaccine boosters from Pfizer and Moderna seem to work just fine against XBB, even though the original vaccines are less effective against XBB. They won’t prevent all infections and reinfections, but they should significantly reduce the chance of severe infection potentially leading to hospitalization or death. “Even with immune-evasive variants, vaccine protection against what matters most—severe disease—remains intact,” Adalja said.
Click to expand...
The Nightmare COVID Variant That Beats Our Immunity Is Finally Here

Wash, rinse, repeat. Wait 6 mos and insert the new variant name in place of XBB, you won't have to change another word...
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol, marcusluvsvols, Rocky_Top_Vol13 and 1 other person
#120,149
#120,149
Now that I’m past the worst of it, I’d rank Covid as slightly worse than a common cold (due to the extreme sore throat and chills) but definitely not as severe as the flu, at least in my anecdotal experience. I never really lost my energy or felt tired, which is odd.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2EastTnVols and davethevol
#120,150
#120,150
Matt2496 said:
Now that I’m past the worst of it, I’d rank Covid as slightly worse than a common cold (due to the extreme sore throat and chills) but definitely not as severe as the flu, at least in my anecdotal experience. I never really lost my energy or felt tired, which is odd.
Click to expand...

What's your vaccination history in regards to Covid?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top