C19 Topics

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Offline
I see competition for this year's Darwin Awards is intense.

"In the spirit of Charles Darwin, the Darwin Awards commemorate individuals who protect our gene pool by making the ultimate sacrifice of their own lives. Darwin Award winners eliminate themselves in an extraordinarily idiotic manner, thereby improving our species' chances of long-term survival."

Conference attendees should note that the innocent bystander clause in the Darwin Awards rules may render them ineligible.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ragman and RLENT

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Online
People who opposed vaccine mandates on the basis that such mandates are unconstitutional are finding the courts do not agree. It seems the government does indeed have the right to impose vaccine mandates. This is not new. That was established by law and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court long ago.

"Over 20 states and "dozens of cities" have implemented vaccine mandates as a way of controlling COVID — and in at least 17 lawsuits, notes the Journal, "judges appointed by both Democrats and Republicans have refused to block" the requirements." (Source)

The power is not total. See this for more.

There's a good possibility for exemptions being given to people with natural immunity due to antibodies developed from having recovered from covid. The ability to determine a threat to the individual's health is also more advanced now. The science in 1905 didn't have the ability to determine the existence or levels of antibodies that's available today, but there does appear to be an allowance for it.

"The Court did not extend the rule beyond the facts of the case before it. Harlan ended his opinion by stating the limitations of the ruling: “We are not inclined to hold that the statute establishes the absolute rule that an adult must be vaccinated if it be apparent or can be shown with reasonable certainty that he is not at the time a fit subject of vaccination or that vaccination, by reason of his then condition, would seriously impair his health or probably cause his death.

 

blackpup

Veteran Expediter
Offline
There seems to be some speculation , that long covid is not the virus, but a result of prolonged use of a steroid used in covid treatment
 
  • Like
Reactions: muttly

coalminer

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Offline
There's a good possibility for exemptions being given to people with natural immunity due to antibodies developed from having recovered from covid. The ability to determine a threat to the individual's health is also more advanced now. The science in 1905 didn't have the ability to determine the existence or levels of antibodies that's available today, but there does appear to be an allowance for it.

"The Court did not extend the rule beyond the facts of the case before it. Harlan ended his opinion by stating the limitations of the ruling: “We are not inclined to hold that the statute establishes the absolute rule that an adult must be vaccinated if it be apparent or can be shown with reasonable certainty that he is not at the time a fit subject of vaccination or that vaccination, by reason of his then condition, would seriously impair his health or probably cause his death.


The thing is if you had Covid you still need a vaccine for the same reason you need multiple shots because our immune system has a very short memory when it comes to certain viruses.


Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
 
  • Like
Reactions: RLENT

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Online
The thing is if you had Covid you still need a vaccine for the same reason you need multiple shots because our immune system has a very short memory when it comes to certain viruses.


Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
The jury is still out on the duration of covid antibodies, but there are a number of studies that indicate natural immunity from recovery is significant and longer-lasting than that of vaccination. If that proves to be the case by the time the anti-mandate lawsuits reach SCOTUS, there might very well be a basis for an exemption given to people that have recovered from covid. If antibody tests prove that an individual's natural immunity is equal or greater to that of the vaccine, how can state or federal governments justify forcing them to be vaccinated by a certain date? My point is that the vaccine mandates will likely pass legal muster, but there should be some legitimate exemptions.

"Unlike circulating antibodies, which peak soon after vaccination or infection only to fade a few months later, memory B cells can stick around to prevent severe disease for decades...
With convalescent patients, on the other hand, memory B cells continued to evolve and improve up to one year after infection. More potent and more broadly neutralizing memory antibodies were coming out with every memory B cell update.
There are several potential reasons that memory B cells produced by natural infection might be expected to outperform those produced by mRNA vaccines, the researchers say."


 

coalminer

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Offline
Don’t forget that there have been studies have shown that some who have had mild cases generate no antibodies.


Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Offline
Don’t forget that there have been studies have shown that some who have had mild cases generate no antibodies.


Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
And don't forget that none of those studies have been certified by peer review. And they were studies about children under 12 with mild cases. Until studies are certified by peer review they are meaningless.

Meanwhile, a study from Washington University in St Louis suggests (you gotta love it when studies conclude things "may" or "suggests") that those recovered from mild covid have antibodies that just keep on keeping on. (the study) but it hasn't been peer reviewed, either.

In other news, a study suggests there is a link between watching Reality TV and coronary artery disease.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Offline
Fast
That study is so politically motivated it's funny. "Better protection" does not necessarily equal "tests negative" for the virus. The study doesn't account for underlying medical conditions. The key to differentiating between infection-acquired immunity vs vaccine immunity is not whether someone tests positive for the pathogen and/or is hospitalized, it's the rate of primary versus secondary infection and which one is those is driving the spread of the pathogen.

Study after study over the last 5 or 6 decades show quite convincingly that vaccines help prevent primary infections, but offer very little protection against secondary infections. Whereas infection-acquired immunity offers substantially more protection against secondary infections, and since both primary and secondary infections are equally contagious, infection-acquired immunity offers more and longer-lasting protection against the spread of the pathogen. The alternative, with most pathogens, is vaccination followed by booster shots. How many booster shots depend on the pathogen, and it appears that covid-19 is going to require at least two boosters (at 6 weeks and at 6 months).
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: blackpup and RLENT

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Offline
  • Like
Reactions: RLENT and Ragman

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Offline
Has anyone gotten the booster shot yet?
Several of our gym members have gotten their COVID-19 booster shots. I have to wait a bit to get mine because of the 90 window following monoclonal antibody treatment. On day 91, I'll be rolling up my sleeve.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Offline
One of many. Interesting that U.S. Supreme Court Trump appointees are voting with the majority on this one. The reason court challenges to vaccine mandates are failing in numerous courts is simple. The law is clear. The government has the constitutional authority to mandate vaccines.
If the law is clear (it is), and the government has the constitution authority to mandate vaccines (they do), why is it even a little bit interesting that Trump appointees are ruling (they don't actually vote) with the majority since the majority are ruling on the basis of the law? I realize that judicial philosophy of liberal judges is not what the law says, or what it is intended to mean, but rather what they want it to mean. But judicial philosophy of conservative judges tends to stick with what the law says, as written, and not go beyond the written word for some meaning that wasn't there when the law was written. So it shouldn't be the least little bit surprising or interesting that textual justices ruled according to the text of the law. The questions raised by the dissenters wasn't even about the law itself, but about whether the mandates within the law infringed on religious freedoms.
 
Last edited:

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Online
Study after study over the last 5 or 6 decades show quite convincingly that vaccines help prevent primary infections, but offer very little protection against secondary infections. Whereas infection-acquired immunity offers substantially more protection against secondary infections, and since both primary and secondary infections are equally contagious, infection-acquired immunity offers more and longer-lasting protection against the spread of the pathogen. The alternative, with most pathogens, is vaccination followed by booster shots. How many booster shots depend on the pathogen, and it appears that covid-19 is going to require at least two boosters (at 6 weeks and at 6 months).
Even the left-leaning Washington Post published an article citing studies establishing the effectiveness of natural covid antibodies.

"More than 15 studies have demonstrated the power of immunity acquired by previously having the virus. A 700,000-person study from Israel two weeks ago found that those who had experienced prior infections were 27 times less likely to get a second symptomatic covid infection than those who were vaccinated. This affirmed a June Cleveland Clinic study of health-care workers (who are often exposed to the virus), in which none who had previously tested positive for the coronavirus got reinfected. The study authors concluded that “individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from covid-19 vaccination.” And in May, a Washington University study found that even a mild covid infection resulted in long-lasting immunity.
So, the emerging science suggests that natural immunity is as good as or better than vaccine-induced immunity."



There's also an article in the Lancet that supports these findings, and I'm fairly certain that this study has been peer reviewed.

Not that people shouldn't get vaccinated as a means of prevention, but those who have recovered from covid should not be forced out of their jobs, considering they're already protected by natural antibodies and should be exempt from vaccine mandates.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Turtle and muttly

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Offline
If the law is clear (it is), and the government has the constitution authority to mandate vaccines (they do), why is it even a little bit interesting that Trump appointees are ruling (they don't actually vote) with the majority since the majority are ruling on the basis of the law? I realize that judicial philosophy of liberal judges is not what the law says, or what it is intended to mean, but rather what they want it to mean. But judicial philosophy of conservative judges tends to stick with what the law says, as written, and not go beyond the written word for some meaning that wasn't there when the law was written. So it shouldn't be the least little bit surprising or interesting that textual justices ruled according to the text of the law. The questions raised by the dissenters wasn't even about the law itself, but about whether the mandates within the law infringed on religious freedoms.
It's a little bit interesting that Trump appointees are ruling with the majority since a good number of people incorrectly assume that judicial appointees are somehow obligated to reflect the nominating president's views. Trump himself would likely rule against vaccine mandates if he could. The fact that some of his Supreme Court nominees are ruling in the opposite way demonstrates that once on the bench, judges have minds of their own and they rule, not as their nominating president would rule, but as they themselves rule based on their understanding of the law.

Few court opinions are unanimous. Judges are human and they have differing views. I pointed out what I did simply to highlight the fact that Supreme Court justices and all judges are not robots. They have minds of their own.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Turtle and RLENT

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Offline
Can the federal government legally require businesses that employ 100 people or more to make COVID-19 vaccinations a condition of employment? That question is working its way through the courts now.

As a business owner with less than 100 employees, I am not directly affected by the mandate previously made and now challenged in the courts. It is a matter of general interest and may have implications for us once the questions are settled.

My first thought is the politicians and regulators are taking the cowardly way out on this. The constitution clearly allows government entities to mandate vaccines. That precedent is long established. And it has been upheld by several courts. So, if the politicians and regulators have the power to mandate vaccines, why don't they simply go ahead and do it, instead of forcing businesses to involuntarily serve as deputies to impose a mandate on their employees? The answer is cowardice. It's easier to make the businesses the bad guy than to be themselves directly accountable for the mandates they want.

I personally believe everyone should be vaccinated against COVID-19 and I believe government should impose and enforce such a mandate (medical and religious exceptions permitted). But I do not believe businesses should be forced into an enforcement role they did not ask for and are not equipped to do without additional effort and expense, for which they are not being trained, equipped or reimbursed by the government that is requiring them to take this action. This is not a product safety or fair trade issue, which the government also regulates. This is government authorities illegitimately using businesses as a foil to keep themselves out of the accountability hot seat.

There is a flip side to this that is also interesting. If the courts find that the government cannot require businesses to impose vaccine mandates, will it also be true that the government cannot prohibit businesses from imposing vaccine mandates on its employees as a condition of employment, or its customers as a condition of doing business?

Numerous businesses have already imposed vaccine mandates on its employees as a condition of employment, not because the government forced them to, but because they believed it to be in the best interests of their businesses and therefor wanted to. In Florida, at least one cruise ship company is requiring its customers to provide proof of vaccination as a condition of booking passage.

There is a new FL state law on the books that prohibits businesses of any size from requiring proof of vaccination as a condition of doing business. That too is being challenged in court. A couple states (TX, MT) have banned employer vaccine mandates.

So we have it on both sides. Should business be required by the government to impose vaccine mandates? And should businesses be prohibited by the government from imposing vaccine mandates?

My answer to both questions is no. If government leaders want people to be vaccinated, let them be the ones to mandate it, and keep life simple by leaving businesses out of this unnecessary and unhelpful legal issue altogether.

 
Last edited:
Top