Their bodies, their decision. I couldn't care less.
I respect any decision from anyone that's willing to accept the full consequences of that decision.
No. That would be a waste of time
Yes they do. Already got legally challenged, judge threw out the case without even a trial.
Assuming y'all are the ones who made the news about this, I enjoyed reading the judge's full order on that case.
The judge's order was clear and concise, but I didn't find it especially spicy or "zinger-ish". Actually, I thought that the judge honed in rather succinctly on the plaintiff just, pretty plainly, being, legally, off-target.
I'm against Vaccine mandates, but I agree the Plaintiff did a poor job of arguing their case. I expect many more of these cases, and likely will get to the Supreme Court eventually.
My issue has nothing to do with long-term safety. I already had COVID (with good antibody response), so any benefit is marginal at a significant risk of getting sick enough from the vaccine for days/weeks and missing work.
The institution in question here does allow for exceptions like the one you mention - those people with valid reasons got waivers.
Whenever a judge calls one of the plantiff's argument "reprehensible", I enjoy it.
That's a pretty low bar, though. For example, with Congress, between Greene and Omar, you get "reprehensible" about once a week.
Did one of them become a judge and I missed it?
Most judges in the US are elected*, and I was equating elected officials. Your sarcasm is, ever so slightly, quizzical. And I did qualify them as being in Congress.
I don't know why you're perseverating on this. Judge Hughes was appointed, as he's Federal. Got it. No sarcasm there. In the words of an unnamed Stormtrooper, "Move along. Move along."Lynn Hughes - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
I'll make it simple: "The judge wrote that the plaintiff's statement was "reprehensible". But, among elected officials, who should be held to a higher standard, they say reprehensible things seemingly weekly".
It should be the same as flu. Get it during peak season. Influenza immunity lasts 6-9 months. I still don't know why we are treating this vaccine in any different manner than influenza. This nonsense of having to get a booster every 3-6 months for a virus with a > 99% survival rate is crazy.
When I worked for UPMC, they also gave the option to just not work during flu season (like hurricane season). The problem with the COVID is that, so far, there isn't a season.
Love it when the local collective IQ goes up in a hospital
Mine still does it.
Go to the bottom left, and click on the style selector. It's there.
Do We KNOW the vaccine mounts a longer response? What we know has changed quite often over the last 18 months. I was just reading a paper regarding bone marrow testing ( small numbers I know) that showed a majority of post infection subjects have consistent memory b cells levels at 8 months and and a year...suggesting long term immunity. Some subjects didn't have the same response and probably need a vaccine or booster. The Cleveland clinic looked at infections in employees who were vaccinated, unvaccinated, and recovered from infection. No reinfections in prior infection group. They concluded those that recovered may not benefit from a vaccine.
I think it's likely to end up another endemic Coronavirus like the other 6 that are just here to stay.
My understanding is the antibody response is more robust (vax vs natural) and has more cross reactivity towards variants. How that plays out in real world data, I dont know.
Instead of people getting vaccinated?
