*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 6825
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Reply #1180 on: November 07, 2021, 11:25:35 AM »
Victory in court!
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59194421

As a temporary injunction by a  judge who apparently didn't see that this has already been settled over 100 years ago.

In 1905 the Supreme Court ruled that a state can mandate a vaccine for the benefit of public health even if it interfered with individual rights. (Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905))
This, naturally, extends to the federal government, whose job it is to ensure "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".  Guess what vaccines fall under?
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 1734
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Reply #1181 on: November 07, 2021, 12:47:44 PM »
Victory in court!
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59194421

As a temporary injunction by a  judge who apparently didn't see that this has already been settled over 100 years ago.

In 1905 the Supreme Court ruled that a state can mandate a vaccine for the benefit of public health even if it interfered with individual rights. (Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905))
This, naturally, extends to the federal government, whose job it is to ensure "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".  Guess what vaccines fall under?
As usual, you have no clue concerning this issue.

At question in front of the Supreme Court was the issue of state law, not a mandate.

This decision doesn't extend to unlawful mandates.

Try again.
It's so hard to have faith in humanity when they do shit like this.

"I hate the police so I'm gonna burn a Walgreen's!"

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 6825
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Reply #1182 on: November 07, 2021, 01:54:58 PM »
Victory in court!
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59194421

As a temporary injunction by a  judge who apparently didn't see that this has already been settled over 100 years ago.

In 1905 the Supreme Court ruled that a state can mandate a vaccine for the benefit of public health even if it interfered with individual rights. (Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905))
This, naturally, extends to the federal government, whose job it is to ensure "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".  Guess what vaccines fall under?
As usual, you have no clue concerning this issue.

At question in front of the Supreme Court was the issue of state law, not a mandate.

This decision doesn't extend to unlawful mandates.

Try again.

Neither do you, it seems.
The conclusion was that the state can impose mandates for public safety even if they infringe on individual rights.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9828
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Reply #1183 on: November 07, 2021, 02:06:05 PM »
This, naturally, extends to the federal government

It definitely does not naturally extend to the federal government and they will have to make a much more convincing argument on why it should.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 1734
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Reply #1184 on: November 07, 2021, 03:05:17 PM »
Victory in court!
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59194421

As a temporary injunction by a  judge who apparently didn't see that this has already been settled over 100 years ago.

In 1905 the Supreme Court ruled that a state can mandate a vaccine for the benefit of public health even if it interfered with individual rights. (Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905))
This, naturally, extends to the federal government, whose job it is to ensure "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".  Guess what vaccines fall under?
As usual, you have no clue concerning this issue.

At question in front of the Supreme Court was the issue of state law, not a mandate.

This decision doesn't extend to unlawful mandates.

Try again.

Neither do you, it seems.
The conclusion was that the state can impose mandates for public safety even if they infringe on individual rights.
Jesus...The conclusion was that STATE LAWS, not MANDATES, could be enforced.

"Justice John Marshall Harlan delivered the decision for a 7–2 majority that the Massachusetts law..." did not violate the 14th Amendment.

Kindly point out in the decision anything referencing mandates, if you're so cocksure.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2021, 03:10:59 PM by Action80 »
It's so hard to have faith in humanity when they do shit like this.

"I hate the police so I'm gonna burn a Walgreen's!"

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 6825
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Reply #1185 on: November 07, 2021, 06:06:51 PM »
Victory in court!
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59194421

As a temporary injunction by a  judge who apparently didn't see that this has already been settled over 100 years ago.

In 1905 the Supreme Court ruled that a state can mandate a vaccine for the benefit of public health even if it interfered with individual rights. (Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905))
This, naturally, extends to the federal government, whose job it is to ensure "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".  Guess what vaccines fall under?
As usual, you have no clue concerning this issue.

At question in front of the Supreme Court was the issue of state law, not a mandate.

This decision doesn't extend to unlawful mandates.

Try again.

Neither do you, it seems.
The conclusion was that the state can impose mandates for public safety even if they infringe on individual rights.
Jesus...The conclusion was that STATE LAWS, not MANDATES, could be enforced.

"Justice John Marshall Harlan delivered the decision for a 7–2 majority that the Massachusetts law..." did not violate the 14th Amendment.

Kindly point out in the decision anything referencing mandates, if you're so cocksure.

From the judge.
Quote
...in every well ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand" and that "[r]eal liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own [liberty], whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others."[2]

And since the Law was  mandate, I'm not sure what your point is. 
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 6825
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Reply #1186 on: November 07, 2021, 06:12:40 PM »
This, naturally, extends to the federal government

It definitely does not naturally extend to the federal government and they will have to make a much more convincing argument on why it should.

Why not?
It is the duty of the federal government to ensure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is not invalidated.  And if a state has the power to ensure that the public is protected and healthy from a disease, then the federal government, which must manage trade and travel between states, can ensure the same as all states have interstate travel and trade.
This is how they are doing it with OSHA.  Essentially stating that a business of 100 people will have interstate commerce and thus must provide a safe workspace that will ensure that any disease is not transferred to other states.


I mean, Biden could just ban interstate travel if vaccines aren't a thing.  But... This seems like a better choice.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3011
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Reply #1187 on: November 07, 2021, 06:59:13 PM »


Where did you get 12 from? I can't find that anywhere. I'm not saying that's not true, I just don't see it mentioned.
The video mentions 9 checked and you stated 3 more were checked. 9+3=12.

The 3 mentioned in the quote I referenced was merely that Ventavia was responsible for 3 out of the 153 sites used in the trial. The 9 "checked" mentioned in the video is from the original paper. And the paper states that info was from a letter from the FDA in August. But I can't find that letter reference anywhere. It doesn't seem to be listed in the paper's references and I can't find it anywhere else. So where's this FDA letter saying 9 sites were "checked"?

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 1734
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Reply #1188 on: November 07, 2021, 07:09:28 PM »
Victory in court!
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59194421

As a temporary injunction by a  judge who apparently didn't see that this has already been settled over 100 years ago.

In 1905 the Supreme Court ruled that a state can mandate a vaccine for the benefit of public health even if it interfered with individual rights. (Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905))
This, naturally, extends to the federal government, whose job it is to ensure "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".  Guess what vaccines fall under?
As usual, you have no clue concerning this issue.

At question in front of the Supreme Court was the issue of state law, not a mandate.

This decision doesn't extend to unlawful mandates.

Try again.

Neither do you, it seems.
The conclusion was that the state can impose mandates for public safety even if they infringe on individual rights.
Jesus...The conclusion was that STATE LAWS, not MANDATES, could be enforced.

"Justice John Marshall Harlan delivered the decision for a 7–2 majority that the Massachusetts law..." did not violate the 14th Amendment.

Kindly point out in the decision anything referencing mandates, if you're so cocksure.

From the judge.
Quote
...in every well ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand" and that "[r]eal liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own [liberty], whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others."[2]

And since the Law was  mandate, I'm not sure what your point is.
So, you got nothing.
It's so hard to have faith in humanity when they do shit like this.

"I hate the police so I'm gonna burn a Walgreen's!"

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 1734
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Reply #1189 on: November 07, 2021, 07:11:16 PM »
This, naturally, extends to the federal government

It definitely does not naturally extend to the federal government and they will have to make a much more convincing argument on why it should.

Why not?
It is the duty of the federal government to ensure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is not invalidated.  And if a state has the power to ensure that the public is protected and healthy from a disease, then the federal government, which must manage trade and travel between states, can ensure the same as all states have interstate travel and trade.
This is how they are doing it with OSHA.  Essentially stating that a business of 100 people will have interstate commerce and thus must provide a safe workspace that will ensure that any disease is not transferred to other states.


I mean, Biden could just ban interstate travel if vaccines aren't a thing.  But... This seems like a better choice.
A state has that power because of legislation passed by representatives of the people, not by dictatorial mandates.
It's so hard to have faith in humanity when they do shit like this.

"I hate the police so I'm gonna burn a Walgreen's!"

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3011
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Reply #1190 on: November 07, 2021, 07:24:38 PM »
Victory in court!
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59194421

As a temporary injunction by a  judge who apparently didn't see that this has already been settled over 100 years ago.

In 1905 the Supreme Court ruled that a state can mandate a vaccine for the benefit of public health even if it interfered with individual rights. (Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905))
This, naturally, extends to the federal government, whose job it is to ensure "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".  Guess what vaccines fall under?
As usual, you have no clue concerning this issue.

At question in front of the Supreme Court was the issue of state law, not a mandate.

This decision doesn't extend to unlawful mandates.

Try again.

Neither do you, it seems.
The conclusion was that the state can impose mandates for public safety even if they infringe on individual rights.
Jesus...The conclusion was that STATE LAWS, not MANDATES, could be enforced.

"Justice John Marshall Harlan delivered the decision for a 7–2 majority that the Massachusetts law..." did not violate the 14th Amendment.

Kindly point out in the decision anything referencing mandates, if you're so cocksure.

"Mandate are quickly implemented to face a specific situation, limited in time. A law is a long-term rule, voted by the elected representatives, and that often take more time to be created. Both are enforceable by the police, but they respond to different situations."

"A mandate is defined as “the authority given to an elected group of people, such as a government, to perform an action or govern a country” (Cambridge Dictionary)...While they might not be laws, a mandate is still legally enforceable. In fact, they will often have the same effect as bills that have passed into law...Additionally, mandates can be as widespread."
https://alldifferences.com/difference-between-mandate-and-law/

Seems that mandates and laws are interchangeable and are differentiated more in terms of effect duration, temporary versus permanent.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 1734
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Reply #1191 on: November 07, 2021, 07:40:43 PM »


Where did you get 12 from? I can't find that anywhere. I'm not saying that's not true, I just don't see it mentioned.
The video mentions 9 checked and you stated 3 more were checked. 9+3=12.

The 3 mentioned in the quote I referenced was merely that Ventavia was responsible for 3 out of the 153 sites used in the trial. The 9 "checked" mentioned in the video is from the original paper. And the paper states that info was from a letter from the FDA in August. But I can't find that letter reference anywhere. It doesn't seem to be listed in the paper's references and I can't find it anywhere else. So where's this FDA letter saying 9 sites were "checked"?
The study in the New England Journal was based off data from 9 sites, 1/3 of that has issues according to the BMJ.

Your joke of a fact check site does nothing to refute the BMJ report.
It's so hard to have faith in humanity when they do shit like this.

"I hate the police so I'm gonna burn a Walgreen's!"

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3011
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Reply #1192 on: November 07, 2021, 07:50:22 PM »


Where did you get 12 from? I can't find that anywhere. I'm not saying that's not true, I just don't see it mentioned.
The video mentions 9 checked and you stated 3 more were checked. 9+3=12.

The 3 mentioned in the quote I referenced was merely that Ventavia was responsible for 3 out of the 153 sites used in the trial. The 9 "checked" mentioned in the video is from the original paper. And the paper states that info was from a letter from the FDA in August. But I can't find that letter reference anywhere. It doesn't seem to be listed in the paper's references and I can't find it anywhere else. So where's this FDA letter saying 9 sites were "checked"?
The study in the New England Journal was based off data from 9 sites, 1/3 of that has issues according to the BMJ.

Your joke of a fact check site does nothing to refute the BMJ report.

You are incorrect. From the article itself:

"In August this year, after the full approval of Pfizer’s vaccine, the FDA published a summary of its inspections of the company’s pivotal trial. Nine of the trial’s 153 sites were inspected. Ventavia’s sites were not listed among the nine, and no inspections of sites where adults were recruited took place in the eight months after the December 2020 emergency authorisation. The FDA’s inspection officer noted: “The data integrity and verification portion of the BIMO [bioresearch monitoring] inspections were limited because the study was ongoing, and the data required for verification and comparison were not yet available to the IND [investigational new drug]."

Nowhere does it say "1/3 of it had issues". What it says is that 9 sites were inspected (out of 153). The 3 Ventavia sites, the ones in question, were not among those 9. What I'm trying to find is where that 9 sites and the above quote from the FDA came from. I can't find it and the author of the article doesn't list it in his references. 

I think it would hold more weight if someone could actually produce that document. Otherwise, I'm a little skeptical.

And btw, it's an article, not a study.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 1734
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Reply #1193 on: November 07, 2021, 07:54:11 PM »


Where did you get 12 from? I can't find that anywhere. I'm not saying that's not true, I just don't see it mentioned.
The video mentions 9 checked and you stated 3 more were checked. 9+3=12.

The 3 mentioned in the quote I referenced was merely that Ventavia was responsible for 3 out of the 153 sites used in the trial. The 9 "checked" mentioned in the video is from the original paper. And the paper states that info was from a letter from the FDA in August. But I can't find that letter reference anywhere. It doesn't seem to be listed in the paper's references and I can't find it anywhere else. So where's this FDA letter saying 9 sites were "checked"?
The study in the New England Journal was based off data from 9 sites, 1/3 of that has issues according to the BMJ.

Your joke of a fact check site does nothing to refute the BMJ report.

You are incorrect. From the article itself:

"In August this year, after the full approval of Pfizer’s vaccine, the FDA published a summary of its inspections of the company’s pivotal trial. Nine of the trial’s 153 sites were inspected. Ventavia’s sites were not listed among the nine, and no inspections of sites where adults were recruited took place in the eight months after the December 2020 emergency authorisation. The FDA’s inspection officer noted: “The data integrity and verification portion of the BIMO [bioresearch monitoring] inspections were limited because the study was ongoing, and the data required for verification and comparison were not yet available to the IND [investigational new drug]."

Nowhere does it say "1/3 of it had issues". What it says is that 9 sites were inspected (out of 153). The 3 Ventavia sites, the ones in question, were not among those 9. What I'm trying to find is where that 9 sites and the above quote from the FDA came from. I can't find it and the author of the article doesn't list it in his references. 

I think it would hold more weight if someone could actually produce that document. Otherwise, I'm a little skeptical.

And btw, it's an article, not a study.
The only reason you're skeptical is a prestigious doctor isn't.
It's so hard to have faith in humanity when they do shit like this.

"I hate the police so I'm gonna burn a Walgreen's!"

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3011
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Reply #1194 on: November 07, 2021, 08:43:51 PM »


Where did you get 12 from? I can't find that anywhere. I'm not saying that's not true, I just don't see it mentioned.
The video mentions 9 checked and you stated 3 more were checked. 9+3=12.

The 3 mentioned in the quote I referenced was merely that Ventavia was responsible for 3 out of the 153 sites used in the trial. The 9 "checked" mentioned in the video is from the original paper. And the paper states that info was from a letter from the FDA in August. But I can't find that letter reference anywhere. It doesn't seem to be listed in the paper's references and I can't find it anywhere else. So where's this FDA letter saying 9 sites were "checked"?
The study in the New England Journal was based off data from 9 sites, 1/3 of that has issues according to the BMJ.

Your joke of a fact check site does nothing to refute the BMJ report.

You are incorrect. From the article itself:

"In August this year, after the full approval of Pfizer’s vaccine, the FDA published a summary of its inspections of the company’s pivotal trial. Nine of the trial’s 153 sites were inspected. Ventavia’s sites were not listed among the nine, and no inspections of sites where adults were recruited took place in the eight months after the December 2020 emergency authorisation. The FDA’s inspection officer noted: “The data integrity and verification portion of the BIMO [bioresearch monitoring] inspections were limited because the study was ongoing, and the data required for verification and comparison were not yet available to the IND [investigational new drug]."

Nowhere does it say "1/3 of it had issues". What it says is that 9 sites were inspected (out of 153). The 3 Ventavia sites, the ones in question, were not among those 9. What I'm trying to find is where that 9 sites and the above quote from the FDA came from. I can't find it and the author of the article doesn't list it in his references. 

I think it would hold more weight if someone could actually produce that document. Otherwise, I'm a little skeptical.

And btw, it's an article, not a study.
The only reason you're skeptical is a prestigious doctor isn't.

What prestigious doctor are you referring to?

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 1734
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Reply #1195 on: November 07, 2021, 09:14:47 PM »
Dr. John Torres flat out lies concerning children.:

It's so hard to have faith in humanity when they do shit like this.

"I hate the police so I'm gonna burn a Walgreen's!"

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3011
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Reply #1196 on: November 07, 2021, 09:27:18 PM »
Dr. John Torres flat out lies concerning children.:

What prestigious doctor are you referring to? There were no prestigious doctors mentioned in your previous posts. How can I be skeptical because a prestigious doctor isn't when no prestigious doctors were mentioned?

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9828
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Reply #1197 on: November 08, 2021, 02:27:37 AM »
Why not?
The 10th Amendment.

It is the duty of the federal government to ensure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is not invalidated.
No, it isn't. It's duty is to ensure no one is deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process.

And if a state has the power to ensure that the public is protected and healthy from a disease, then the federal government, which must manage trade and travel between states, can ensure the same as all states have interstate travel and trade.
And the federal government can make that argument in court, and they are likely going to lose.

I mean, Biden could just ban interstate travel if vaccines aren't a thing.  But... This seems like a better choice.
Biden cannot ban interstate travel or trade. What are you even talking about?

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3011
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Reply #1198 on: November 08, 2021, 05:01:17 AM »
Biden cannot ban interstate travel or trade. What are you even talking about?

Kinda yes, kinda no. It's very murky territory regarding federal impositions on interstate travel.

"Emergency Powers

Both the President and the lead cabinet level agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the governors have powers in a public health emergency that conflict with and limit the right to travel.

Federal

The present federal coronavirus emergency relies on three separate authorities: the one declared by the President, both invoking Section 201 of the 1976 National Emergencies Act, and the Stafford Act; and the public health emergency declared in January by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under the 1944 Public Health Services Act (PHSA).

The PHSA authorities are the ones that have the most potential to impact interstate travel. While in the past, the powers used focused only on travelers into the United States, the operative language of PHSA also addresses travel between states.
"
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/salpal/the-right-to-travel-and-national-quarantines-coronavirus-tests-the-limits/

But obviously, anything along those lines would be contested in court.

Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« Reply #1199 on: November 08, 2021, 08:29:57 AM »
Some real world data to break Action80 and Tom Bishop microbrains

https://abc.net.au/news/2021-11-08/nsw-health-data-reveals-protection-covid-19-vaccine-gives/100603470

Quote
People in NSW who are not vaccinated against COVID-19 were 16 times more likely to die, or end up in intensive care during the state's Delta outbreak, new government data has revealed.

At the peak of the outbreak between August 25 and September 7, 49.5 per 100,000 fully vaccinated people were infected with the virus, compared with 561 per 100,000 unvaccinated people.

The data was collated by NSW Health and released today.

COVID ICU admissions or deaths peaked between September 8 and September 21, in just 0.9 per 100,000 fully vaccinated people, compared with 15.6 per 100,000 unvaccinated.

It means people who had not had a COVID-19 jab were 16 times more likely to die, or get so sick they needed the top level of hospital care.