Covid-19 News

Dozens of scientists call for deeper investigation into origins of COVID-19, including the lab theory

https://thehill.com/policy/hea…o-origins-of-covid-19?amp

A group of international scientists and academics are reiterating calls to the World Health Organization to dig deeper in flushing out the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, in particular suspicions that the virus leaked from a lab in Wuhan, China where first outbreak was reported.

It is the third letter WHO has received raising concerns over its initial investigation into the origins of the virus in China.

"Understanding the origins of the pandemic is essential to addressing our vulnerabilities and preventing future crises. Unfortunately, as outlined in previous open letters released on March 4 and April 7, structural, procedural, and analytical shortcomings of the WHO-convened joint study into COVID-19 origins have created unnecessary barriers to this understanding," the letter reads.

It was signed by 25 scientists and academics and organized by Jamie Metzl, a senior fellow with the Atlantic Council think tank in Washington, D.C.; Virginie Courtier, an evolutionary geneticist with the Institut Jacques Monod, CNRS, in France; and Gilles Demaneuf, an engineer and data scientist with the Bank of New Zealand.

Scientists have determined that the origins of the COVID-19 disease that has terrorized the world originated in an animal and passed to humans, but they have not determined how and when the original transmission took place.

A team of experts from WHO carried out an investigation into the origins of the virus from January to February 2021, more than a year after the first illnesses were reported in the Chinese city of Wuhan in December 2019.

The pandemic has caused more than 3.2 million deaths worldwide

Countries are racing to vaccinate their populations against more infectious and deadly variants of the disease amid devastating outbreaks, in particular in India, and as deaths continue to mount. Brazil surpassed 400,000 deaths on Thursday, an example of how the virus is still wreaking havoc.

A full WHO report into the origins of the virus was published on March 30 and received international criticism, including from WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom, who called the final publication "an important beginning" but noted that it failed to find the source of the virus.

Critics of the investigation say the long-delay, and limited access by Chinese authorities, have tainted the findings of the report.

In March, the U.S. signed onto a joint statement with 13 other countries raising "shared concerns" over the investigation - saying it was significantly delayed and lacked access to complete, original data and samples.

The open letter from the more than two dozen scientists "lays out specific recommendations for what a full investigation into pandemic origins should entail."

Among the recommendations is a full inquiry into the theory that the virus potentially leaked from a laboratory in Wuhan.

The theory that COVID-19 leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a lab that was investigating coronavirus in bats and located near the animal market where the first cases of the illness were reported, was a fixation of the Trump administration.

Former President Trump and his officials cast blame on China for the spreading of the pandemic and sought to deflect criticism of its own handling of the outbreak by calling for Beijing to be held accountable.

Mike Pompeo, who served as secretary of State under Trump, claimed that there was a "significant amount of evidence" that the virus leaked from a lab in Wuhan, but agreed with the consensus from the scientific community that the virus was not man-made.

U.S. intelligence officials, while concurring with scientists that the virus's origin is likely naturally-occurring in animals, have also not ruled out the possibility it leaked from a lab.

Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines said in a hearing with lawmakers this month that a laboratory accident is one possible theory the intelligence community is exploring to explain how the coronavirus was initially transmitted.

"We have two plausible theories that we're working on ... one is it was a laboratory accident, and the other is that it emerged naturally from human contact with infected animals and those are the two we are working through," Haines said.

Haines, along with CIA Director William Burns, testified to lawmakers that the U.S. intelligence community does not share the same assessment of the April WHO report that a lab leak was "very unlikely" to be the first source of transmission.

"We do not make the assessment that the World Health Organization report made, that it's 'exceedingly unlikely,' I believe is their language, or 'extremely unlikely' - that is not our assessment," Haines said in response to a question from a lawmaker if the virus leaked from a lab.

the return of the gestapo?

German Intelligence Puts Coronavirus Deniers Under Surveillance

The country’s domestic intelligence agency says it will create a new department to deal with extremism among conspiracy theorists

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/0…deniers-surveillance.html

BERLIN — Germany’s domestic intelligence service said on Wednesday that it would surveil members of the increasingly aggressive coronavirus denier movement because they posed a risk of undermining the state.

The movement — fueled in part by wild conspiracy theories — has grown from criticizing coronavirus lockdown measures and hygiene rules to targeting the state itself, its leaders, businesses, the press and globalism, to name a few. Over the past year, demonstrators have attacked police officers, defied civil authorities and in one widely publicized episode scaled the steps of Parliament.

“Our basic democratic order, as well as state institutions such as parliaments and governments, have faced multiple attacks since the beginning of the measures to contain the Covid-19 pandemic,” the Interior Ministry said in a statement confirming that parts of the denier movement would be under observation. The Interior Ministry oversees the intelligence agency, the Office for the Protection of the Constitution.

In announcing the decision to keep tabs on conspiracy theorists, intelligence officials noted the movement’s close ties to extremists like the Reichsbürger, a network of groups that refuse to accept the legitimacy of the modern German state.

Many coronavirus deniers say they also believe in QAnon conspiracy theories, and protesters are frequently seen holding signs with anti-Semitic tropes.

The movement, called Querdenken, German for lateral thinking, communicates and recruits over social media and has a large presence on the encrypted chat service Telegram, where its main channel has 65,000 subscribers. Parts of AfD, a German right-wing populist party that is also under surveillance, have allied themselves with protesters.

Still, the Interior Ministry took pains to say that the danger from coronavirus deniers and conspiracy theorists does not fit the mold posed by the usual, politically driven groups, including those on the far left and right, or by Islamic extremists. As a result, the authorities are setting up a new department specifically tasked with handling cases that seek to delegitimize the state.

The news comes days after Germany instituted new virus rules that apply nationwide and allow the federal government to enforce lockdowns. (Such regulation had previously been in the hands of the country’s 16 states.) It also suggests that the authorities believe coronavirus denier groups could continue to flourish and pose a threat after the pandemic ends.

It is an open and very heterogenous movement,” said Oliver Nachtwey, a sociology professor in Basel, who said the deniers reflected another iteration of the social movements that have sprung from mistrust in democracy and its institutions.

It’s a turning away from the political system,” Mr. Nachtwey said. “And it’s being done with a sort regressive rebelliousness.”

Mr. Nachtwey said he understood the federal authorities’ rationale in keeping tabs on the movement, but he wondered if putting it under surveillance would not worsen matters.

“The decision might lead to hardening of the position or even further radicalization,” Mr. Nachtwey, “because effectively the state is confirming its overreach.”

A week ago, when Parliament passed the law giving the government powers to impose the latest lockdown, about 8,000 of the movement’s activists took to the streets in Berlin before being dispersed by the police for ignoring mask and distancing rules. Germany has seen a persistently high number of new daily cases recently, averaging about 19,000, up from about 8,000 two months ago.

Last August, when restrictions were relatively light, the deniers drew 40,000 protesters to Berlin. While most were peaceful, even if eschewing masks and social distancing measures, a small number managed to jump police lines and climb Parliament’s outside stairs, a breach of security that President Frank-Walter Steinmeier characterized as an “attack on the heart of democracy.”

The national intelligence agency’s formal observation of the deniers’ group is the first step in a process that could lead to it being declared unconstitutional and ultimately banned.

Pia Lamberty, a psychologist and expert in the German conspiracy scene, warned of connections between the deniers and far-right extremists. “The danger of Querdenken,” she said, “has long been underestimated.”

Large Spain Gig Shows "No Sign" Of COVID-19 Transmissions

Christian Eede , April 29th, 2021 16:38

Researchers found that the transmission level at the 5,000-capacity event was lower than that of the general population

https://thequietus.com/article…of-covid-19-transmissions

Researchers in Spain have found "no sign" of higher levels of COVID-19 infection among people who attended a 5,000-capacity test concert last month.

As BBC News reports, just six people returned a positive COVID-19 test within 14 days of attending the gig in Barcelona, with an incidence level that was lower than that seen in the general population. Attendees were required to wear masks but did not have to adhere to social distancing rules.

Of the six people who tested positive within 14 days of attending the event, researchers concluded that four of them were infected elsewhere, rather than at the event.There is no sign that suggests transmission took place during the event," infectious disease specialist Josep Maria Llibre is quoted as saying at a news conference earlier this week.

Similar large concerts and other events have been taking place around Europe to monitor transmission in such places. A two-day experiment in the Netherlands last month involved 1,500 people, while Liverpool party Circus will host two test club events this weekend.

could a weekend CME have anything to do with this, check india's cases on Monday

WHO Europe Reports First Drop in COVID Cases in 2 Months

https://www.voanews.com/covid-…-covid-cases-2-months?amp

The World Health Organization's Europe Regional Director Hans Kluge reported Thursday the number of new COVID-19 infections in the region dropped significantly in the last week for the first time in two months.

Speaking from WHO regional headquarters in Copenhagen, Kluge said hospitalizations and deaths were also down in the past week. He also said as of Thursday, 7% of Europeans have been totally vaccinated, more than the 5.5% of the population that has contracted COVID-19.

Kluge cautioned that while that is good news, the virus remains a threat, as infection rates remain high in several areas. He said individual and collective public health and social measures remain dominant factors in shaping the pandemic's course.

Quote from Fm1

Pia Lamberty, a psychologist and expert in the German conspiracy scene, warned of connections between the deniers and far-right extremists. “The danger of Querdenken,” she said, “has long been underestimated.”

It's not quite Orwell's Doublespeak, but it's something, and these days it's strong.

People who believe the government is over-reaching in its measures against the coronavirus are called coronavirus deniers.

People who believe that climate change is always happening and that manmade CO2 emissions do not represent a dire threat to mankind are called climate change deniers.

People who believe that healthy, younger members of a population should not be coerced to take an an experimental vaccine are called antivaxxers.

People who protest in the streets, and get fined and arrested by the state for doing so, are called a threat to democracy.

I was passed this along for real news - 4/29 reports is quite interesting and fits tidbits i've learned along the way, will keep due diligence on this

unitednetwork.nunchee.tv

Quote from Alan Smith

From my friends at Cambridge Center for the Study of Existential Risk. Not strictly about Covid, but about the dangers of governments invoking emergency powers in a crisis.

https://www.cser.ac.uk/news/st…nts-abuse-emergency-powe/

These two paragraphs say it all, thanks Alan!

Are all the measures introduced during the coronavirus pandemic a necessary evil to ensure public safety? It appears not. A recent review of the effectiveness of Covid-19 response measures published in Nature Human Behaviour ranked police and army interventions, surveillance and the activation of an emergency response in the bottom seven of 20 surveyed measures.

This should not be surprising. There is emerging evidence that emergency powers are usually used to benefit governments rather than save lives. One study of natural disasters and the use of constitutional emergency provisions found that the more powers given to the executive, the higher the body count (controlling for disaster severity and size).

it is not legal to mandate an emergency use drug. Government silence is a form of coercion! There are laws on the books against such actions!!!

More than 100 US colleges and universities are now requiring students to get Covid-19 vaccinations

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/0…ne-requirement/index.html

(CNN)College students hesitant to receive a Covid-19 vaccination may need to rethink their decision. As most colleges in the US inch toward the end of the spring semester, a new procedure is taking shape for their return.

More than 100 US colleges and universities have said they will require all their students to get vaccinated against Covid-19 before they return to campus for the fall semester, according to a CNN tally.

Earlier this month, the tally indicated that at least 14 universities and colleges were adopting that policy. Since then, dozens of higher education institutions have jumped on the bandwagon, demonstrating the trajectory of vaccine requirements. Some schools have said they will make exemptions for medical, religious or personal reasons

Can Employers Mandate COVID-19 Vaccines? Likely Not (Yet), Given Current FDA Emergency Use Authorization Status

https://www.lexology.com/libra…48-4793-aa34-1d210f3ade7c

With distribution of COVID-19 vaccines moving ahead full-steam, an end to the pandemic may be in sight in the coming months. However, what is collectively known as the “new normal” still comes with a minefield of unanswered questions, particularly for employers, and the vaccine issue is no different.

Contending with the polarization of vaccine skepticism and the country’s desire to return to “normal” in the wake of a global pandemic, many are wondering: Can employers require employees to get vaccinated against COVID-19?

Guidance from the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) may suggest that the answer is yes, but the current legal context for COVID-19 vaccines is different from ordinary, time-tested vaccines. Employers should therefore carefully consider their potential legal liability if they impose such a requirement prior to full approval of any such vaccines from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Ordinary Vaccine Considerations. Employers generally can mandate “ordinary” vaccines, subject to business considerations, taking into account accommodations that may be required under the American with Disabilities Act, or due to certain medical conditions (such as pregnancy or strong allergies to vaccine components), or for religious reasons. Requests for religious accommodation may be based on objections to the concept of vaccines generally, or specific to a particular vaccine (e.g., gene-based vaccines). This analysis applies in the context of vaccines approved by the FDA through its formal process under which, after consideration of evidence from human studies, the agency determines that vaccines are safe and effective. For example, the FDA has formally approved many influenza vaccines, which in turn have been mandated by some employers (such as health care providers) in accordance with EEOC guidance.

EEOC Guidance regarding COVID-19 Vaccines. In December 2020, the EEOC issued guidance (“Guidance”) in which it implied that employers can mandate COVID-19 vaccines. However, unlike influenza and similar vaccines, COVID-19 vaccines are currently being made available not through the FDA’s formal approval process, but rather through a more streamlined “emergency use authorization” (EUA) process. In its Guidance, the EEOC carefully sidestepped the issue of whether employers may mandate vaccines authorized under an EUA, versus those approved pursuant to the FDA’s formal approval process. (See Guidance, Question K.4, including links to the FDA’s website regarding EUAs.) The statutory provisions governing the FDA’s emergency process, however, include language that raises concern about the potential legality of employers mandating vaccines authorized under an EUA. Specifically, the language appears to provide individuals with a federal statutory right to refuse administration of vaccines authorized under an EUA.

The FDA’s Formal Approval Process. The FDA’s normal process for authorizing the development and marketing of a vaccine has two general stages. In the first stage, the agency approves an “investigational new drug” application (IND), which authorizes the company involved to conduct studies in humans of the effects of the vaccine (clinical studies). Phase 1 clinical studies focus on determining the safety of the vaccine; Phase 2 clinical studies provide further evidence of safety, as well as initial evidence of effectiveness; and Phase 3 clinical studies are typically large-scale studies of safety and effectiveness. In the second stage of development and marketing, the company submits an application to the FDA for formal approval to market the vaccine (a biologics license application, or BLA). The FDA considers all of the clinical evidence from the IND studies and makes a risk-benefit analysis of whether to approve the BLA. Existing guidance and case law regarding employer-mandated vaccines all appear to have involved vaccines with approved BLAs.

The FDA’s Streamlined EUA Process. In the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Congress decided that, in emergency situations, the FDA should be permitted to authorize the market entry of drugs (including vaccines) that have not been approved through the FDA’s full formal process. Specifically, Congress created Section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), which gives the FDA authority to allow the marketing of unapproved drugs if the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), through the secretary of HHS, has issued a declaration that there is a public health emergency. (See 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3.) The premise presumably is that, in an emergency situation, the FDA will allow a greater degree of risk, in part by not requiring the full range of clinical studies that would be necessary for formal approval. In the case of an emergency vaccine, a company is not required to submit an IND, nor is it required to submit a BLA; instead, under Section 564, it submits an application for an EUA.

An EUA, therefore, is very different from a formal approval by the FDA. Due to the 9-11 attacks, Congress had a strong sense of what it means to be in an emergency situation. The first response of Congress to those attacks was the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (enacted in June 2002 as PL 107-188), but its FDA-related provisions provided only a modest variation on the agency’s formal drug-approval process. Then Section 564 was added to the FDCA by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (enacted in November 2003 as PL 108-136). Subsequently, Section 564 was reenacted with technical changes as part of the Project Bioshield Act of 2004 (enacted in July 2004 as PL 108-276). The section thereafter was amended several times.

Recognizing the potential for adverse reactions to medical countermeasures, Congress also passed the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (enacted in December 2005 as PL 109-148), known as the “PREP Act,” to establish liability protection for the administration or use of medical countermeasures, including products marketed under EUAs, and to create a fund to compensate those injured by such countermeasures. (The PREP Act does not provide protection in cases of willful misconduct.)

There was strong bipartisan consensus on these laws as responses to the 9-11 attacks. As part of this process, Congress anticipated that a pandemic would likely occur at some point and made an effort to think through the issues that could arise in that regard.

EUA Requirements. From its inception, Section 564 has imposed conditions upon the emergency use of FDA-regulated products, including vaccines. Importantly, these have always included the requirements that recipients be informed, to the extent practicable, that they have “the option to accept or refuse administration of the [EUA] product [and] of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product.” (Section 564(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III).) This is a logical requirement, given the increased level of potential risk involved in taking an EUA drug as compared to a drug approved through the formal FDA process.

As evidence of the regulatory scope of Section 564, consider that Congress has created only one exception to the notification and right of refusal requirements, which concerns the armed forces. Specifically, these requirements may be waived for the armed forces if the U.S. president determines, in writing, that complying with such requirements is not in the interests of national security. (See 10 U.S.C. § 1107a.) The clear implication is that, in the absence of such a written waiver by the president, each member of the armed forces has the right of refusal and must be informed of such right. No such presidential determination for EUA COVID-19 vaccines has been made, and approximately one-third of the armed forces has declined to accept the vaccine, according to Pentagon officials. Given that Congress has not enacted any other exceptions, it stands to reason that the general rule is that each individual in the United States has these same rights.

COVID-19 Vaccines under EUAs. On Feb. 4, 2020, HHS declared a public health emergency for purposes of Section 564. On March 27, 2020, an HHS declaration became effective for the FDA to issue EUAs for drugs, including vaccines. As of this writing, three COVID-19 vaccines have received EUAs from the FDA, the Pfizer-BioNTech, authorized on Dec. 11, 2020, the Moderna vaccine, authorized on Dec. 18, 2020, and the Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) vaccine, authorized on Feb. 27, 2021. (See “Drugs and Biological Products” approval letters and fact sheets here.)

The letters granting the EUAs state, among other things, that the FDA has concluded that the vaccines “may be effective” (emphasis added). The letters also state that the manufacturers are required to give a “fact sheet” to health care providers who administer the vaccines that instruct them to inform vaccine recipients of the right to refuse the vaccine. Notably, upon termination of the current HHS declaration of a public health emergency under Section 564, the further marketing and administration of an EUA vaccine will become illegal (unless and until the vaccine is formally approved by FDA).

Preemption and State Laws. The FDCA is a federal regulatory statute that preempts conflicting state laws. This preemptive force should include the individual’s right of refusal under Section 564. Many states are currently considering legislation concerning vaccinations, with some seeking to prohibit mandatory vaccines, and others contemplating imposing vaccine mandates under certain circumstances. It remains to be seen whether laws mandating vaccines will pass, and if so, whether they would survive a legal challenge asserting that the right to refuse the vaccine in the FDCA preempts conflicting state law.

Employer Vaccine Mandates and EUAs. Given these facts, can an employer mandate employees to get vaccinated under threat of termination or other employment action? In other words, is an employer that mandates EUA vaccinations subject to—and in violation of—Section 564(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) by becoming a “person who carries out any activity for which the [EUA] is issued”? The law regarding EUAs is unclear and as yet untested.

Under FDCA section 510(a) (and Pom Wonderful, LLC v. Coca-Cola Company, 573 US 102, 109 (2014)), there is no general private right of action under the FDCA, but the question of whether Congress intended to create such a right under Section 564(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) apparently has not been addressed. However, such a scenario could give rise to a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy under state law, given the clear right of refusal under Section 564. The FDCA does not address this issue, but it would be difficult to argue that the required disclosure of the “consequences” of refusing administration of the vaccine contemplates things like termination of employment (as opposed to health-related consequences). Moreover, as noted above, once the current HHS declaration of a public emergency under Section 564 is terminated, an employer mandating that employees receive an EUA vaccine will do so knowing (or presumed to know) that such a mandate is unlawful.

Notably, just before this client alert went to press, a case was filed in federal district court in New Mexico on exactly the bases outlined above. (Legaretta v. Fernando Macias, et al., Case 2:21-cv-00179, filed Feb. 28, 2021.) Specifically, the plaintiff, an employee of the Dona Ana Detention Center, asserts that his employment has been threatened with employment termination due to his exercise of his federal right to refuse the EUA vaccine in the face of his employer’s vaccine mandate. The plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to, among other things, prevent the employer from coercing the vaccine and from retaliating against him for exercising a federal right. It appears to be the first case of this kind, but it doubtless will not be the last.

Takeaways. Even if employers can mandate the vaccine, the real question is whether they should. That question is currently premature for many employers, given that the vaccines are not expected to be widely available until this summer. The legal issues surrounding mandatory COVID-19 vaccines are currently unsettled, but are likely to be fleshed out in the coming months. Moreover, mandating the vaccine raises a host of issues (see our prior client alert on this topic here). Among other things, it is unclear whether the PREP Act would protect an employer that requires employees to receive an EUA COVID-19 vaccine.

At this juncture, given the uncertainty surrounding the legality of mandating EUA-status vaccines, plus the other issues raised by mandatory vaccines, the safer course of action is to encourage employees to get the vaccine rather than mandating it, providing facts about the vaccine and legally permissible incentives to do so, and accommodating those who are unable to get the vaccine for religious, medical or disability-related reasons. The EEOC recommends this course of action, and the CDC has created toolkits to assist employers in encouraging vaccinations.

Employers should continue to monitor this evolving situation, consider these issues, as well as the additional considerations that doubtless will arise, and work with legal counsel in developing their vaccine strategy.

Quote from Fm1

it is not legal to mandate an emergency use drug.

Are you sure about that? The article you quote above seems muddled to me. It is approved for use. Approved is approved, emergency or not. No doubt the vaccines will soon be fully approved on a non-emergency basis. So even if you are right, this will soon be a moot point.

Quote from Fm1

Government silence is a form of coercion! There are laws on the books against such actions!!!

More than 100 US colleges and universities are now requiring students to get Covid-19 vaccinations

Those colleges and universities would be crazy not to require this. They would be sued for huge sums of money when the students get sick or die, after vaccines are available and that can easily be prevented. It is inevitable that unvaccinated students will get sick.

The CDC wants cruise ships to only allow passengers with vaccination passports. The industry complains that the CDC regs are too complicated. The governor of Florida vows he will overrule the CDC and any cruise ship company that demands vaccination proof. He wants a law that says they are not allowed to ask for a vaccine passport. Question: Would you board a cruise ship knowing that some passengers may not have been vaccinated? I would say you are crazy if you would. COVID tests are not sufficient. In Japan they just conducted a test cruise with all passengers rapid-tested before boarding. The second day someone came down with COVID, and the rest of the cruise was cancelled.

The governor of Florida is always in favor of free enterprise and letting private property owners set their own rules, except when he is against it. He is always in favor of freedom of speech for corporations, except when he is against it.

bill gates called out

The epiphany, you don't need permission to fight back

Quote from JedRothwell

Are you sure about that? The article you quote above seems muddled to me. It is approved for use. Approved is approved, emergency or not. No doubt the vaccines will soon be fully approved on a non-emergency basis. So even if you are right, this will soon be a moot point.

Those colleges and universities would be crazy not to require this. They would be sued for huge sums of money when the students get sick or die, after vaccines are available and that can easily be prevented. It is inevitable that unvaccinated students will get sick.

The CDC wants cruise ships to only allow passengers with vaccination passports. The industry complains that the CDC regs are too complicated. The governor of Florida vows he will overrule the CDC and any cruise ship company that demands vaccination proof. He wants a law that says they are not allowed to ask for a vaccine passport. Question: Would you board a cruise ship knowing that some passengers may not have been vaccinated? I would say you are crazy if you would. COVID tests are not sufficient. In Japan they just conducted a test cruise with all passengers rapid-tested before boarding. The second day someone came down with COVID, and the rest of the cruise was cancelled.

The governor of Florida is always in favor of free enterprise and letting private property owners set their own rules, except when he is against it. He is always in favor of freedom of speech for corporations, except when he is against it.

Display More

It is muddled, I agree but I also don't think the courts will uphold any type of vaccine mandate for employment nor for a Covid passport, based on this muddled declaration

Quote from Fm1

It is muddled, I agree but I also don't think the courts will uphold any type of vaccine mandate for employment nor for a Covid passport, based on this muddled declaration

As I said, full approval will come soon, so this is a moot point. As a practical matter, ~1 billion of the mRNA vaccines have been given without a single confirmed serious adverse effect. Whereas close to 600,000 Americans have died from the disease. So, a court case or some sort of law that would prohibit universities, cruise ships, movie theaters and others from demanding a vaccine passport would be lunacy. Extreme lunacy -- an engraved invitation to sickness, death, and ruinous lawsuits from students who get sick.

What is the alternative? Stay home! Attend classes via the internet, as everyone did in 2020. You may not like it, but it is not a burden. No university is forcing any student to be vaccinated. That is NOT what is happening. They are only insisting that students who wish to attend in person be vaccinated. That is not coercion. It is not a "mandate" (as you call it). There is no mandate to attend classes in person any more, and I doubt there ever will be again.

You cannot take a virtual cruise on a cruise ship, so that is all or nothing. Either get vaccinated or don't go. But again, no one can call that coercion because not being allowed to take a cruise for a good reason is not a punishment.

An alternative? Why not simply use a waiver, like I had to sign at the dentist. Part of it was a simple acknowledgement that being at the dental office puts me at risk of contracting covid. I don't demand that my dentist be vaccinated, he doesn't demand that I be vaccinated, and no-one is about to be sued. Why can't that be done for universities? Wait. Who is a big funder of universities?

Quote from Fm1

BERLIN — Germany’s domestic intelligence service said on Wednesday that it would surveil members of the increasingly aggressive coronavirus denier movement because they posed a risk of undermining the state.

This happens if an FM pussy together with other mafia members rules to long....

Quote from Fm1

Speaking from WHO regional headquarters in Copenhagen, Kluge said hospitalizations and deaths were also down in the past week. He also said as of Thursday, 7% of Europeans have been totally vaccinated, more than the 5.5% of the population that has contracted COVID-19.

Quote from Fm1

(CNN)College students hesitant to receive a Covid-19 vaccination may need to rethink their decision. As most colleges in the US inch toward the end of the spring semester, a new procedure is taking shape for their return.

The true figures: 1/3 of all Swiss have CoV-19 antibodies. 10000 Swiss so far died with or from CoV-19 96.5% were older than 65 years. So do the calcs! The risk for a student to die of CoV-19 is << 0.001% at most for the whole group between 0 and age 65 its between 0.01..0.02% still 10x less than from a mild flue. (In fact no student died so far!)

How long want these fascists go on to play the vaccine game for a disease that is 10..100x more harmless than a flu??

Switzerland is 90% open again. Most people walk around with useless surgical masks. But no increase in cases so far because at least 85% of the older are now vaccinated.

So stop all these useless and killing lockdowns after the old and teh vulnerable got the jab(s).

Quote from Mark U

An alternative? Why not simply use a waiver, like I had to sign at the dentist.

Do you mean a waiver that says, "I have not been vaccinated so it is my responsibility if I get sick"? That seems like a legally risky thing to do, given the alternative that you can ensure there will not be a single case by allowing only vaccinated students on campus. Also, that would not cover rare but possible breakthrough cases where a vaccinated student is infected by a non-vaccinated one. I just do not see why a university would take any legal risk -- or any moral risk! -- of allowing infections, when that can be totally avoided with a vaccine that we know for sure is 100% safe. The safest in the history of medicine, as you would expect from 21st Century technology.

To me, that would be letting students ride bicycles at high speed without helmets around the campus. Yes, you could get them to sign waivers, because unlike motorcycles, adult helmets are not legally required for bicycles. (Not in Georgia, anyway.) But anyone familiar with accident statistics will tell you that riding a bicycle at high speed without a helmet is an incredibly dangerous thing to do. If a student were to be seriously injured, crippled for life, or killed, how would the parents and students react? How would you, as an administrator feel? You have a piece of paper, so your school will not have to pay out millions of dollars. Okay, but was it worth it? Is there really any value to letting students risk their lives on campus in idiotic ways? Are you going to have another waiver for students who want to chug down a whole bottle of scotch, which is also likely to kill someone? It seems morally abhorrent to allow suicidal behavior on your property as long as you are absolved of paying money for the consequences. And make no mistake: not getting vaccinated is suicidal, even at a young age.

I do not see what the issue is here. Students can choose whether to get vaccinated or not. They can attend class either way. All universities now offer virtual attendance. So they are not missing anything, except the physical presence of their friends. It is their choice not to be vaccinated and not to attend. They cannot have it both ways.

Years ago, before fast internet was developed, banning students would have been an imposition. It would have meant they had to interrupt their education until after the pandemic. Now it just means they can't go into the building. I get that some students prefer actually being present. I probably would prefer that myself. But, it's a pandemic. A once-in-century disaster, like a war, only with more dead people. They are lucky they even have the choice of getting vaccinated or attending remotely. It seems to me they are asking for too much, and they want to have it both ways, when they say "no vaccine yet I get to come to class anyways." No, you don't. End of story. It is like demanding they let you come on campus naked, or drunk.

Quote from JedRothwell

Do you mean a waiver that says, "I have not been vaccinated so it is my responsibility if I get sick"? That seems like a legally risky thing to do, given the alternative that you can ensure there will not be a single case by allowing only vaccinated students on campus. Also, that would not cover rare but possible breakthrough cases where a vaccinated student is infected by a non-vaccinated one. I just do not see why a university would take any legal risk -- or any moral risk! -- of allowing infections, when that can be totally avoided with a vaccine that we know for sure is 100% safe. The safest in the history of medicine, as you would expect from 21st Century technology.

To me, that would be letting students ride bicycles at high speed without helmets around the campus. Yes, you could get them to sign waivers, because unlike motorcycles, adult helmets are not legally required for bicycles. (Not in Georgia, anyway.) But anyone familiar with accident statistics will tell you that riding a bicycle at high speed without a helmet is an incredibly dangerous thing to do. If a student were to be seriously injured, crippled for life, or killed, how would the parents and students react? How would you, as an administrator feel? You have a piece of paper, so your school will not have to pay out millions of dollars. Okay, but was it worth it? Is there really any value to letting students risk their lives on campus in idiotic ways? Are you going to have another waiver for students who want to chug down a whole bottle of scotch, which is also likely to kill someone? It seems morally abhorrent to allow suicidal behavior on your property as long as you are absolved of paying money for the consequences. And make no mistake: not getting vaccinated is suicidal, even at a young age.

I do not see what the issue is here. Students can choose whether to get vaccinated or not. They can attend class either way. All universities now offer virtual attendance. So they are not missing anything, except the physical presence of their friends. It is their choice not to be vaccinated and not to attend. They cannot have it both ways.

Years ago, before fast internet was developed, banning students would have been an imposition. It would have meant they had to interrupt their education until after the pandemic. Now it just means they can't go into the building. I get that some students prefer actually being present. I probably would prefer that myself. But, it's a pandemic. A once-in-century disaster, like a war, only with more dead people. They are lucky they even have the choice of getting vaccinated or attending remotely. It seems to me they are asking for too much, and they want to have it both ways, when they say "no vaccine yet I get to come to class anyways." No, you don't. End of story. It is like demanding they let you come on campus naked, or drunk.

Display More

None of this matters because we have hippa laws that prohibit anyone from asking you to reveal medical information.

Quote from Mark U

I don't demand that my dentist be vaccinated, he doesn't demand that I be vaccinated

I sure as hell would demand that my dentist be vaccinated! If he told me he was not, I would cancel the appointment. I would never go to him again. In Georgia, doctors, nurses and dentists could get vaccinations in January. There is no excuse for any medical professional not to be vaccinated. A doctor who chooses not to be vaccinated is an ignorant fool who has no business practicing medicine. It would be like a surgeon who does not bother to wash his hands and put on scrubs, gloves and mask. Would you go to a surgeon who operates in his street clothes and bare hands, like the Eakins painting of the Gross Clinic? Would you really be that crazy?

(My dentist was vaccinated, so this is hypothetical.)

If I were a dentist, at this stage in the pandemic, I would refuse to see unvaccinated patients for routine cleaning. Only for medical emergencies. That is what my dentist did at the height of the pandemic. He put off appointments for a while.

Other doctors and hospitals last year made me take a COVID test, which seemed like a sensible thing to do. If a dentist demanded that an unvaccinated patient take a rapid test now, that would probably be a safe alternative. Either that, or the dentist wears complete PPE and charges extra.

A dental appointment is different from attending a university in person. You cannot get your teeth cleaned or other medical treatment except in person. And it is likely you will infect the dentist if you have the disease. It is much more dangerous than just being in a lecture hall with another student.