DeSantis pandering again

Most abortions are using a pill and are effectively an induced miscarriage.

 

I never took an Econ. class that linked pandemic pandering to housing economy and gerrymandering. But ok ?

 

In terms of variants, the science can change in as little as 3 months, at least as to efficacy against infection. Fortunately the efficacy against severe disease has largely held up.

The fact that you clearly understand the impact of variants but choose to use them as an argument against vaccines shows you have a political agenda.

 

Moving the goalposts again.

That's not what the quote said and that's not what the argument was. The quote was regarding "efficacy against transmission." Not whether the vaccine is good, whether the risks exceed the rewards, and not regarding it's efficacy against severe illness.

I have clearly stated how variants may affect vaccine efficacy, but here you are again ignoring any comment I've made in that regard because it's convenient.

What you're doing is using variants as complete cover for any inaccuracy in a study, regardless how off it ended up being in practice for a reasonable amount of time, to the point where it doesn't even merit further investigation.

So no, I'm not going to play this game with you where you ask me who said something, I give it to you, you say it's not good enough or that one basically doesn't count.

You ask me who lied, I tell you, you say that doesn't count.

You ask me when statement X was made, and the very next step is it was true in the case of the study (even if that's not what pharma was saying) and it may have even been true as a general matter for even the smallest of windows, which would preclude liability, even if people couldn't rely on that information to their benefit because by the time they actually did something about it the "science" changed.

It must be nice to not be able to be held accountable because you have to prove the falsity of a study in the narrowest of time windows even if people couldn't rely on it.

 

Well assuming the DeSantis was killing all of our grandparents, I'd think that would cause a massive exodus from Florida, not people from everywhere else coming here.

Also, I don't think you can attribute going from a win of 10s of thousands of votes in 2018 to 1.5 million in 2022 to "gerrymandering." I know that's the Too Hot Democratic answer to every time Republicans win an election, but plain and simple, Democrats got their asses kicked in Florida.

 

To "save the most unborn" would be to not have an exception for rape. You do have a qualifier in there - the word "best." I think the reason we are talking about your "starting point" is because it does not seem that you're just practically acknowledging that a rape exception is a political necessity because not having a rape exception would turn some people off and hurt the cause with respect to the greater number of cases. Rather, I think you're saying that even if laws which did not have a rape exception were completely politically viable could be passed tomorrow, you would still support a rape exception given your weighing of the interest of the women against the priority of saving the unborn. I am just saying that I think your willingness to engage in that sort of balancing of interests is very similar to pro choice arguments about compassion and fairness which fall outside of the rape context.

And yeah, I do think both sides have difficulty drawing lines here. Good discussion.

 

If you can't see how it's possible to lie or mislead, or how there's an incentive to lie and mislead about efficacy against transmission based on the fact that vaccination was framed as this civic duty to protect others for basically the entirety of the pandemic when the vaccines were available, I don't know what to tell you.

And if you think with a reasonable degree of certainty that the vaccines were actually like 94% effective against transmission against the initial variant and that the data just changed to being incredibly ineffective against transmission, you probably trust the pharmaceutical companies more than you probably should. Obviously the variants have something to do with the waning efficacy, but you can't use that as absolute cover for any information presented to us regarding 90%-94% efficacy against transmission. In practice, that ended up not being even close to reliable, especially if you were taking the vaccine specifically to protect others from transmission.

Maybe that's true, it's possible for it to be true, but this is a grand jury petition. It at least warrants more attention, more eyeballs, because it's pretty reasonable for that to not be true. The standard of probable cause may have very well been met. The petition is not calling for a determination of guilt or innocence, just whether enough was presented to warrant further investigation.

Calling it a "sham" or an "embarrassment" is just political grandstanding in regards to the politicization that has become of the vaccines because of the guy who signed the petition, and because nobody's capable of seeing nuance anymore now that this issue has been politicized.

 

Why can't all posters be like you?

 

WAS is the key word. We're talking about your stance now.

 

As others have noted, DeSantis said the vaccines were very important in saving hospital visits and lives, and that was presumably based upon his discussion with medical professionals on the ground. So I don't think that's an issue he can really push. I do think transmission efficacy probably waned with the later variants but I've been surprised by how fast that's changed. It's not unfair to question the extent of that and whether they overestimated it, purposefully or not. But that seems to me more like a health and policy inquiry. Proving criminal fraud is another matter. But they say you can indict a ham sandwich if you want to. I don't recall ever following one of these Florida grand juries set up by a Governor and don't know how it's going to be run or set up. But yes, I'm very skeptical of his motives here given his inclusion of the Disney carve out for the social media bill and the way he turned on Disney, only maybe to reverse course yet again. He's coming across as very reactionary.

 

I am not aware of any lies. All those statements were true when they were made, based upon the studies done and the applicable variant at the time. The fact that a variant changes the efficacy, months after a statement is made, does not retroactively make the statement a lie.

You don’t want to look up the dates and context the statements were made. Fine. I did. If you are too lazy to look them up then don’t make statements that people are liars.

You are trying to cover for your new dear leader Desantis and you will lie and distort to do so. I can demonstrate that any of the statements were true, and have done so already - which you promptly ignored.

 

Yeah, you use terms like "extermination." How is that better than murder? You think it is an accidental extermination?

And being scared for your future quality of life is not an affirmative defense for murder. You just apply a different standard to women seeking abortions than you do for intentional killings of human beings who have been born because...it is different. Also why we don't issue conception certificates, celebrate conception days, count people in the census before they are born, or assign just about any other rights to those who aren't born.

 

This does make me wonder about Musk tweeting on December 11th about prosecuting Fauci. His tweet was just two days before DeSantis filed the Petition, but I don't know if DeSantis' plan to file it was public knowledge at that point. It seems unlikely to me that Musk thought the Feds were going to try to prosecute Fauci.

 

Early study in Israel.

Apologize now.

Israeli Study Offers First Real-World Glimpse of COVID-19 Vaccines in Action

. A new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine [1] offers an early answer for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. The Pfizer product is an mRNA vaccine that was found in a large clinical trial to be up to 95 percent effective in preventing COVID-19, leading to its Emergency Use Authorization last December. The new data, which come from Israel, are really encouraging. Based on a detailed analysis of nearly 600,000 people vaccinated in that nation, a research team led by Ran Balicer, The Clalit Research Institute, Tel Aviv, found that the risk of symptomatic COVID-19 infection dropped by 94 percent a week after individuals had received both doses of the Pfizer vaccine. That’s essentially the same very high level of protection that was seen in the data gathered in the earlier U.S. clinical trial.

 

No we arent. You said my starting point proves I am not compromising. You are doing so my dismissing my actual starting point lol.

My stance now is a compromised position from my actual starting point of a couple decades back.

I cant believe I'm having to explain this.
My position now is not my starting point.

 

You don't know anything. You're just making stuff up as you go along and making it literally impossible to prove any lie was committed.

You see what you want, you read what you want, you hear what you want. You are incapable of seeing reason. You have your mind made up, and no amount of evidence in front of you will change it. And, you don't want more evidence coming up because you think a grand jury here would be a complete waste of time and money. So you're calling the whole thing an "embarrassment."

I'm not calling them "liars." I'm saying they spread falsities regarding the COVID vaccines. Whether they believed them and what their motivations were is another story entirely.

It's clear I'm not going to change your mind, and there's nothing I can really say to change your mind. So I don't want this conversation to get uglier which feels like an inevitability if it continues.

 

This U.K. study compiled in August 21 showed 85% effectiveness against infection with alpha variance and 90% against symptoms

https://assets.publishing.service.g...1359_VEEP_Vaccine_Effectiveness_Table__1_.pdf

To be clear, alpha was a variant.

 

In my mind, medical doctors, public officials and pharma companies won't have to prove the information was perfect or even substantially accurate. If it's a criminal investigation, I assume the burden of proof is going to be on the State of Florida to prove not only material misrepresentations but also criminal intent to defraud based upon the information which was available at the time. Maybe they have such evidence, and we haven't seen it, but wouldn't a grand jury indictment generally require at least probable cause?

 

I go to the extermination terminology, when someone else goes to the Nazi terminology. Sort of points out the ridiculousness of it, don't ya think?

I used it directly quoting a post with Nazi hyperbole.