(06-04-2021 11:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-04-2021 11:31 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-04-2021 11:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-04-2021 11:22 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-04-2021 11:20 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I get the distinct impression that this thread has degenerated from a reasonable discussion of legitimate issues to a gotcha hair-splitting and parsing of comments in order to score ad hominem points against each other.

Please list my ad homs in this discussion.

You're kidding, right?

No... I am assuming that you are including me in your "ad hom" points comments and I honestly don't think that I've been doing that. Maybe not a list... but an example or two. Or you can ignore if you weren't including me in your comment.

I'd basically include the full body of work of your and Lad's comments to Tanq, on this thread and others, and vice versa, in the ad hom range. Pick any of those. You've been basically been parsing words to attack each other without providing much of anything in the way of substantive discussion.

OK... I'm asking because I have been trying to avoid ad homs and I was generally curious as to where I have crossed the line with this. I see now that you are implying a more "historical" pattern.

(06-04-2021 11:59 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-04-2021 11:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-04-2021 11:31 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-04-2021 11:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-04-2021 11:22 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Please list my ad homs in this discussion.

You're kidding, right?

No... I am assuming that you are including me in your "ad hom" points comments and I honestly don't think that I've been doing that. Maybe not a list... but an example or two. Or you can ignore if you weren't including me in your comment.

I'd basically include the full body of work of your and Lad's comments to Tanq, on this thread and others, and vice versa, in the ad hom range. Pick any of those. You've been basically been parsing words to attack each other without providing much of anything in the way of substantive discussion.

OK... I'm asking because I have been trying to avoid ad homs and I was generally curious as to where I have crossed the line with this. I see now that you are implying a more "historical" pattern.

I am admittedly talking about more historical, and I've kind of gotten to the point that when a thread turns into back and forth between you all, I tend to jump past it because I don't care to read the back and forth. I would ask you, since you seem to believe that you have reformed, what substantive comments have you made in this thread?

It's kind of like putting a bunch of schnauzers in a bag.

(06-04-2021 11:59 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-04-2021 11:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-04-2021 11:31 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-04-2021 11:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-04-2021 11:22 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Please list my ad homs in this discussion.

You're kidding, right?

No... I am assuming that you are including me in your "ad hom" points comments and I honestly don't think that I've been doing that. Maybe not a list... but an example or two. Or you can ignore if you weren't including me in your comment.

I'd basically include the full body of work of your and Lad's comments to Tanq, on this thread and others, and vice versa, in the ad hom range. Pick any of those. You've been basically been parsing words to attack each other without providing much of anything in the way of substantive discussion.

OK... I'm asking because I have been trying to avoid ad homs and I was generally curious as to where I have crossed the line with this. I see now that you are implying a more "historical" pattern.

In honesty, 93 hasnt in this instance.

What he has done is try to denote my comment as something that *he* wishes to argue against. I understand the term 'considerably overlap' does not mean all. But 93 keeps banging that drum somehow and even after I explicitly state that it does not.

My comment, is that 93, seems quick on the trigger to name one group as a considerable amount of a population, names only them as members of a population, and seems to be both quick on the trigger to name that group *and* only that group, and somewhat narrow viewed in naming only that group.

And, 93 has done the somewhat snide characterization of that broad population before.

*That* is what I am pointing out.

And, I get frustrated when that same person keeps banging a straw man drum incessantly as a 'defense' of the statements.

Look, I say broad, bad things about progressives. At least I own those comments and that point of view. And when pressed, I will tell you why I think those views are a fair characterization.

When pressed, 93 runs from those comments, but without abandoning them. He instead made up the claptrap that I accused him of stating 'considerably == all'. Perhaps he does that to not own up to the broad characterization he put out there.

And he persisted even *after* I explicitly said: ""All? No, you didnt say all." But he keeps banging that drum for some reason.

Yes, we get it 93, you seemingly think that most of the knuckle draggers that are anti-vax are the same group of knuckle draggers that are trumpistas. And yes, we get it (as you have made that same snide-ish type of rhetorical generation before) on that group. At least own up to your comments. That is, instead of making a false statement about my comments, and then on top of it blaming Ham for *your* choice of words.

(06-04-2021 12:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-04-2021 11:59 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-04-2021 11:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-04-2021 11:31 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-04-2021 11:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  You're kidding, right?

No... I am assuming that you are including me in your "ad hom" points comments and I honestly don't think that I've been doing that. Maybe not a list... but an example or two. Or you can ignore if you weren't including me in your comment.

I'd basically include the full body of work of your and Lad's comments to Tanq, on this thread and others, and vice versa, in the ad hom range. Pick any of those. You've been basically been parsing words to attack each other without providing much of anything in the way of substantive discussion.

OK... I'm asking because I have been trying to avoid ad homs and I was generally curious as to where I have crossed the line with this. I see now that you are implying a more "historical" pattern.

I am admittedly talking about more historical, and I've kind of gotten to the point that when a thread turns into back and forth between you all, I tend to jump past it because I don't care to read the back and forth. I would ask you, since you seem to believe that you have reformed, what substantive comments have you made in this thread?

What substantive comments have I made? I guess it depends on your own standard for "substantive". You have made it explicitly clear with your previous comments exactly how valuable you find my opinions to be (some would say you crossed the line into ad hom territory even).

That is all to say... read the thread or don't read the thread if you want insight into this. It makes no difference to me.

(06-04-2021 12:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-04-2021 11:59 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-04-2021 11:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-04-2021 11:31 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-04-2021 11:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  You're kidding, right?

No... I am assuming that you are including me in your "ad hom" points comments and I honestly don't think that I've been doing that. Maybe not a list... but an example or two. Or you can ignore if you weren't including me in your comment.

I'd basically include the full body of work of your and Lad's comments to Tanq, on this thread and others, and vice versa, in the ad hom range. Pick any of those. You've been basically been parsing words to attack each other without providing much of anything in the way of substantive discussion.

OK... I'm asking because I have been trying to avoid ad homs and I was generally curious as to where I have crossed the line with this. I see now that you are implying a more "historical" pattern.

In honesty, 93 hasnt in this instance.

What he has done is try to denote my comment as something that *he* wishes to argue against. I understand the term 'considerably overlap' does not mean all. But 93 keeps banging that drum somehow and even after I explicitly state that it does not.

My comment, is that 93, seems quick on the trigger to name one group as a considerable amount of a population, names only them as members of a population, and seems to be both quick on the trigger to name that group *and* only that group, and somewhat narrow viewed in naming only that group.

And, 93 has done the somewhat snide characterization of that broad population before.

*That* is what I am pointing out.

And, I get frustrated when that same person keeps banging a straw man drum incessantly as a 'defense' of the statements.

Look, I say broad, bad things about progressives. At least I own those comments and that point of view. And when pressed, I will tell you why I think those views are a fair characterization.

When pressed, 93 runs from those comments, but without abandoning them. He instead made up the claptrap that I accused him of stating 'considerably == all'. Perhaps he does that to not own up to the broad characterization he put out there.

And he persisted even *after* I explicitly said: ""All? No, you didnt say all." But he keeps banging that drum for some reason.

Yes, we get it 93, you seemingly think that most of the knuckle draggers that are anti-vax are the same group of knuckle draggers that are trumpistas. And yes, we get it (as you have made that same snide-ish type of rhetorical generation before) on that group. At least own up to your comments. That is, instead of making a false statement about my comments, and then on top of it blaming Ham for *your* choice of words.

Blaming Ham? "My choice" of words? I responded to him trying to use the exact same phrase that he used. And then OO jumped on me for that exact phrase. Did you not see the sequence of that?

(06-04-2021 01:13 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-04-2021 12:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-04-2021 11:59 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-04-2021 11:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-04-2021 11:31 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  No... I am assuming that you are including me in your "ad hom" points comments and I honestly don't think that I've been doing that. Maybe not a list... but an example or two. Or you can ignore if you weren't including me in your comment.

I'd basically include the full body of work of your and Lad's comments to Tanq, on this thread and others, and vice versa, in the ad hom range. Pick any of those. You've been basically been parsing words to attack each other without providing much of anything in the way of substantive discussion.

OK... I'm asking because I have been trying to avoid ad homs and I was generally curious as to where I have crossed the line with this. I see now that you are implying a more "historical" pattern.

In honesty, 93 hasnt in this instance.

What he has done is try to denote my comment as something that *he* wishes to argue against. I understand the term 'considerably overlap' does not mean all. But 93 keeps banging that drum somehow and even after I explicitly state that it does not.

My comment, is that 93, seems quick on the trigger to name one group as a considerable amount of a population, names only them as members of a population, and seems to be both quick on the trigger to name that group *and* only that group, and somewhat narrow viewed in naming only that group.

And, 93 has done the somewhat snide characterization of that broad population before.

*That* is what I am pointing out.

And, I get frustrated when that same person keeps banging a straw man drum incessantly as a 'defense' of the statements.

Look, I say broad, bad things about progressives. At least I own those comments and that point of view. And when pressed, I will tell you why I think those views are a fair characterization.

When pressed, 93 runs from those comments, but without abandoning them. He instead made up the claptrap that I accused him of stating 'considerably == all'. Perhaps he does that to not own up to the broad characterization he put out there.

And he persisted even *after* I explicitly said: ""All? No, you didnt say all." But he keeps banging that drum for some reason.

Yes, we get it 93, you seemingly think that most of the knuckle draggers that are anti-vax are the same group of knuckle draggers that are trumpistas. And yes, we get it (as you have made that same snide-ish type of rhetorical generation before) on that group. At least own up to your comments. That is, instead of making a false statement about my comments, and then on top of it blaming Ham for *your* choice of words.

Blaming Ham? "My choice" of words? I responded to him trying to use the exact same phrase that he used. And then OO jumped on me for that exact phrase. Did you not see the sequence of that?

Whatever --- I am out to do something more productive. Blowing tree stumps out of the ground. Be good, My Friend.

By the way, *I* responded to your choice to single out the one group.

And, read my exact repsonse below. Tell me where I 'jumped on [you]' in the below.

Quote:I think they run a gamut. Yes, Trumpista types are in there to a good deal; but at least here in Austin the 'natural whole grain' types are in the same boat. And, I dont think political bent can really describe the very real proportion of health care professionals that are 'anti-covid-vax'.

My belief is that your "anti-vaxxers overlap CONSIDERABLY with the anti-media culture right" is painting with a horribly wide brush.

Good grief, Charlie Brown.

The sheer horror of that 'jumping all over you' as above. It takes a strong psyche to survive *that* 'jumping all over you.' (as promised /sarcasm off)

(06-04-2021 01:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  By the way, *I* responded to your choice to single out the one group.

And, read my exact repsonse below. Tell me where I 'jumped on [you]' in the below.

Quote:I think they run a gamut. Yes, Trumpista types are in there to a good deal; but at least here in Austin the 'natural whole grain' types are in the same boat. And, I dont think political bent can really describe the very real proportion of health care professionals that are 'anti-covid-vax'.

My belief is that your "anti-vaxxers overlap CONSIDERABLY with the anti-media culture right" is painting with a horribly wide brush.

Good grief, Charlie Brown.

The sheer horror of that 'jumping all over you' as above. It takes a strong psyche to survive *that* 'jumping all over you.' (as promised /sarcasm off)

In no way did I say that you jumped on me over that post. Where did I say that you did? Where are you coming up with this?

(06-04-2021 10:44 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Haven't read much of the more recent conversations... so please don't add any later convos to my thoughts below... I am responding to solely what I quoted here...

(06-03-2021 02:36 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I guess I associate what you are saying with more of a libertarian approach than a Republican one.

But almost by definition, Trump supporters are not GOP members. The GOP came around to Trump, not the other way around. Whether they are libertarians or 'anti-government' types (drain the swamp) is often a distinction without a difference to liberals, but not to conservatives. Most often, I find libertarians described by the left as 'off-gridder, survivalist, all but NO government' types, as opposed to more of a local control, meet the market as opposed to trying to fix the world with one law types. MOST Republicans believe more in 'more specialized ad targeted' regulation, rather than 'no' regulation. It does result in LESS regulation, but that is mostly because 'one size fits all' regulation relies on a vast array of exceptions and definitions which creates loopholes to be exploited (from all directions).

Quote:Are the mandates of employment law applied differently for private hospital systems because they generate some of their revenue from federal programs such as Medicare? Are they held to a different standard WRT employment practices than other private companies?

What if healthcare companies don't accept government insurance? Private urgent care centers/surgery centers/free-standing hospitals, etc. Would they be able to demand that their employees receive the vaccine?

Generally speaking... insofar as what you can require an employee to do.... there is little difference between public and private systems. Not only because they are paid by the government, but because they are dealing with human lives. The biggest determinant of public vs private has to do with the economics of a community. If there is not enough population to support a hospital, it will tend to be public, OR incentives will be given by the government to make a non-economic situation 'work' for a private entity. The government has determined that (as an example) you can require healthcare employees to get a flu vaccine OR require that they wear a mask 24/7 at work... and while some small centers won't enforce it either because they don't like it or they are just lazy... I guarantee that is in their policy manual. You generally agree to be bound by CMS regulations when you enter healthcare.

This is an example of 'one size fits all' regulation. CMS requires that 'for the safety of patients', certain protocols are standard nationally, with no 'exception' for the local situation... so if CMS says 'no double occupancy rooms' (and sometimes they say that simply through paying more for it/incentives) because NYC and its 400 bed hospital is rampant with COVID, that will also apply to a tiny hospital in rural Texas where there may be NO cases of COVID... and so few beds that single occupancy limits them to 5 patients, which doesn't even support 1 FTE for a Hospitalist... or 2 FTEs for nurses etc.... which impacts patient safety.

(06-03-2021 02:42 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I think the anti-vaxxers overlap CONSIDERABLY with the anti-media culture right. What group do you think the anti-vaxxers fall into?

I think there are connections between being against manipulation by media and being manipulated by government... people who 'don't care' what other people think but make their own decisions... but that doesn't mean they are exclusive. SOME people are anti-vaxxers because of religion, or because of skepticism about 'big pharma', or even 'healthy living' as opposed to 'better living through chemistry'.

Lots of off-gridders are extreme liberals/socialists.

Quote:I don't follow. Somebody on here suggested that he would be likely to eschew mask wear (even if he believed in it) if Trump had come out and supported the universal use of masks? I don't remember that.

It was Lad. He wasn't 'rabid' about it, but I suggested it as a possibility and he essentially said that although it may not make him actually change his mind, it would certainly be a negative association. I'm not trying to 'out' him or characterize him poorly... just saying he agreed with me.

Quote:Are you saying that if Trump had come out and said "Hey, it's super important to use masks all of the time. Let's make this happen" that almost none of his supporters would have gotten behind that idea? I don't agree if that's what you're saying.

Well, you've moved the bar somewhat to 'almost none'...

What I'm saying is that people who believe things find ways to justify any apparent discord... cognitive dissonance. I don't think there were NEARLY as many people who were idolizing and blindly following 'whatever' Trump said... as the left assumes.

Said simply... people who support Trump would have either ignored him when he said that... think LESS of him for 'bending a knee'... OR found some way to manage the dissonance. What they would be LEAST likely to do is 'blindly follow' a politician whom they primarily like because he doesn't 'blindly follow' politicians.

Quote:Again... not sure that I agree with that when it comes to masks.

Yeah, but you didn't like Trump... ONE of the reasons you didn't is because he didn't follow (and in fact often specifically defied) conventional political wisdom.

I think you're precisely demonstrating why 'the left' doesn't get Trump supporters, other than to claim that they are all racists, misogynists, liars etc, despite the fact that polls based on race and gender tended to disprove that opinion. I am not REMOTELY saying that you fit this bill... I am merely saying that this has been the overwhelming response to Trump and his supporters from the left.... that they are all HORRIBLE people.

(06-03-2021 10:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  What proportion of medical doctors are "anti-covid-vax"? I'm sure that they exist however I've never met one or seen one on TV. I would guess that the % of "anti-covid-vax" medical doctors is well south of 5%.

That's a bit like asking what proportion of football players are 'anti-sports'. You don't become, and certainly not remain a doctor and then side against medical assistance for people.

And I am 100% certain that you could easily find and MD out there concerned about the vaccine. Dr Jane Orient was invited to speak to COngress about it. Her credentials??

Executive Director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons and president of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness

Not necessarily large or mainstream groups... but certainly she fits the description you seek, and while you may understandably not know her or have heard of her, had the media you follow endorsed her ideas (or highly involved in vilifying her) or you been highly involved in the hearings on the vaccine, I'm sure you would have.

How Trump acted in regards to masking would not have affected my opinion or action in the slightest, or would it have been a negative with respect to masking.

My recollection is I said that Trump wearing a mask may have actually caused some hard core leftists to question its efficacy, in the same way it would have caused some Trumpists to mirror him.

Glad you didn’t mean to characterize me poorly, but you did...

(06-04-2021 11:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-04-2021 11:31 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-04-2021 11:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-04-2021 11:22 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-04-2021 11:20 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I get the distinct impression that this thread has degenerated from a reasonable discussion of legitimate issues to a gotcha hair-splitting and parsing of comments in order to score ad hominem points against each other.

Please list my ad homs in this discussion.

You're kidding, right?

No... I am assuming that you are including me in your "ad hom" points comments and I honestly don't think that I've been doing that. Maybe not a list... but an example or two. Or you can ignore if you weren't including me in your comment.

I'd basically include the full body of work of your and Lad's comments to Tanq, on this thread and others, and vice versa, in the ad hom range. Pick any of those. You've been basically been parsing words to attack each other without providing much of anything in the way of substantive discussion.

Damn, don’t even post once in a thread and still get pulled in.

What’s it like to have that kind of real estate?

(06-04-2021 06:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  My recollection is I said that Trump wearing a mask may have actually caused some hard core leftists to question its efficacy, in the same way it would have caused some Trumpists to mirror him.

Don’t know who said what or what they meant, but in the Quote, I think leftists are much more likely to emulate a leader they respect. Conservatives are more likely to follow their own judgement.

JMHO

Trump didn’t wear a mask. I did. I didn’t care what Trump or Nancy or Barbra Streisand thought. I knew what I thought.

(06-02-2021 06:40 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Not at all an attorney, but a healthcare quality expert.

The vaccine is fundamentally/scientifically no different from any other vaccine, including the flu vaccine. It has been derived via a different method than many, but is hardly experimental. The flu vaccine or a mask at all times is a requirement for healthcare workers. Under a declared emergency, the CDC (iirc, through the atty gen??) has almost unlimited authority to do anything it thinks necessary to protect the population. As long as the CDC called for this under their emergency authority, it will be upheld. If you don't get a flu shot or wear a mask, you can't work in healthcare WITHOUT a pandemic.

The Nuremburg claim is scientifically inaccurate. I don't know if that is legally material, but I would suspect it is

Ham, based on the fact that I know several nurses who are at big hospitals that state that more than 50% of them are opting NOT to receive the shot at all (including a majority of those who work on Covid floors), it looks like many in the healthcare industry know better than to take this shot at all. Many doctors as well, according to these nurses. Not to mention that many at the CDC itself have yet to get the shot even though their own company pushes for it. That does not sound like a ringing endorsement of this "thing" they keep trying to push on us.

(06-04-2021 10:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  How Trump acted in regards to masking would not have affected my opinion or action in the slightest, or would it have been a negative with respect to masking.

That's fine... so why was it so important to so many leftists that Trump be out there 'modeling' behavior? Why is it so important that Biden be seen walking ALONE down a 30 foot hallway wearing a mask, only to take it off when he reaches the podium?

To many on the left, its all about 'the show'.... when the reality is that like you and me, most educated people make their own decisions and don't need Biden or Trump or Spike Lee or anyone else to tell them what to do. SOME would be less likely, not more likely to follow certain people (you may not agree with this but both lad and I did, which shows that its not politically driven)... and the number of people who would only get a shot or wear a mask if 'the right person' told them to do it are the clear minority??

Quite frankly, I am 110% AGAINST feeding that sort of culture... regardless of the issue. Not that i have a MAJOR issue with celebrities' getting behind a movement and expressing their opinion... which I can agree with or ignore... but that so many do things because Kim Kardashian (who has NO credibility as a healthcare expert) says to. That's just asking for popular morons to lead us. I'm not calling her a moron... I'm simply saying that you may as well be taking advice from your dog as from people who don't know what they're talking about.

Quote:My recollection is I said that Trump wearing a mask may have actually caused some hard core leftists to question its efficacy, in the same way it would have caused some Trumpists to mirror him.

You still believe that Trumpists would have mirrored him, which flies directly in the face of his popularity with them... so you still don't get it. Questioning its efficacy?? That doesn't even make sense to me. How would 'who wore it' cause you to question its efficacy?

Quote:Glad you didn’t mean to characterize me poorly, but you did...

NOt at all. SInce I wasn't speaking about you personally, you had to CHOOSE to feel characterized poorly.

It doesn't characterize you poorly to say that you seem to have no clue as to how 'Trumpists' think? You're not one (and proudly so I suspect).

I think it serves the left to characterize trumpists (a word with no real definition in the first place) as those who blindly follow him, so that they can then use any characterization they make of him, to then taint all of those people with the association. If I did the same to you or the left about all of Biden's gaffes, you'd disagree with that association, ESPECIALLY if like the Trumpists, you disagreed on the subject... i.e. I don't think Trump is the overt racist that you do... You don't think Biden is the overt sexist that I do (and frankly, just as racist as Trump... (Poor kids being just as smart as white kids... they can't afford lawyers and accountants etc).... so if you (the left) accused me of supporting racism if I supported Trump, it would be no different than me accusing you of supporting sexism (or racism) if you supported Biden.

(06-05-2021 07:49 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Ham, based on the fact that I know several nurses who are at big hospitals that state that more than 50% of them are opting NOT to receive the shot at all (including a majority of those who work on Covid floors), it looks like many in the healthcare industry know better than to take this shot at all. Many doctors as well, according to these nurses. Not to mention that many at the CDC itself have yet to get the shot even though their own company pushes for it. That does not sound like a ringing endorsement of this "thing" they keep trying to push on us.

I think this completely misrepresents what these people 'know'.... and I employ them, survey them, reach out to them and ask their opinions routinely and have for years.... and is factually inaccurate.

MANY people, especially 'those who work on covid floors' already have had the disease... so they don't need the vaccine. It's a completely unnecessary risk for them... That doesn't mean its especially risky... especially compared to what they face every day. They also often have their own issues, as much as the rest of the population like being pregnant or other potential complications.... AND let's not forget... these people are healthcare workers... they know their specialty... like lab work or drawing blood or taking x-rays... but it doesn't mean they know a damn thing about viruses and how they work. You wouldn't ask the cafeteria worker at your hospital to diagnose you, would you?

Also, let's be honest...
If you get the vaccine and you have a reaction, you may miss work. If you don't get it and you get sick while at work, that's actually a potential workers comp claim.

The response to COVID was overdone primarily because the risk was initially over-represented. Once we understood the risk, we should have backed off on the response... but the government, overwhelmingly the left and media saw 'money in motion' and an opportunity to exploit fear for political gain. That really has nothing to do with 'fear' of the vaccine itself, and I refuse to support comments that seek to similarly exploit fear.

(06-07-2021 11:57 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-04-2021 10:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  How Trump acted in regards to masking would not have affected my opinion or action in the slightest, or would it have been a negative with respect to masking.

That's fine... so why was it so important to so many leftists that Trump be out there 'modeling' behavior? Why is it so important that Biden be seen walking ALONE down a 30 foot hallway wearing a mask, only to take it off when he reaches the podium?

To many on the left, its all about 'the show'.... when the reality is that like you and me, most educated people make their own decisions and don't need Biden or Trump or Spike Lee or anyone else to tell them what to do. SOME would be less likely, not more likely to follow certain people (you may not agree with this but both lad and I did, which shows that its not politically driven)... and the number of people who would only get a shot or wear a mask if 'the right person' told them to do it are the clear minority??

Quite frankly, I am 110% AGAINST feeding that sort of culture... regardless of the issue. Not that i have a MAJOR issue with celebrities' getting behind a movement and expressing their opinion... which I can agree with or ignore... but that so many do things because Kim Kardashian (who has NO credibility as a healthcare expert) says to. That's just asking for popular morons to lead us. I'm not calling her a moron... I'm simply saying that you may as well be taking advice from your dog as from people who don't know what they're talking about.

Quote:My recollection is I said that Trump wearing a mask may have actually caused some hard core leftists to question its efficacy, in the same way it would have caused some Trumpists to mirror him.

You still believe that Trumpists would have mirrored him, which flies directly in the face of his popularity with them... so you still don't get it. Questioning its efficacy?? That doesn't even make sense to me. How would 'who wore it' cause you to question its efficacy?

Quote:Glad you didn’t mean to characterize me poorly, but you did...

NOt at all. SInce I wasn't speaking about you personally, you had to CHOOSE to feel characterized poorly.

It doesn't characterize you poorly to say that you seem to have no clue as to how 'Trumpists' think? You're not one (and proudly so I suspect).

I think it serves the left to characterize trumpists (a word with no real definition in the first place) as those who blindly follow him, so that they can then use any characterization they make of him, to then taint all of those people with the association. If I did the same to you or the left about all of Biden's gaffes, you'd disagree with that association, ESPECIALLY if like the Trumpists, you disagreed on the subject... i.e. I don't think Trump is the overt racist that you do... You don't think Biden is the overt sexist that I do (and frankly, just as racist as Trump... (Poor kids being just as smart as white kids... they can't afford lawyers and accountants etc).... so if you (the left) accused me of supporting racism if I supported Trump, it would be no different than me accusing you of supporting sexism (or racism) if you supported Biden.

(06-05-2021 07:49 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Ham, based on the fact that I know several nurses who are at big hospitals that state that more than 50% of them are opting NOT to receive the shot at all (including a majority of those who work on Covid floors), it looks like many in the healthcare industry know better than to take this shot at all. Many doctors as well, according to these nurses. Not to mention that many at the CDC itself have yet to get the shot even though their own company pushes for it. That does not sound like a ringing endorsement of this "thing" they keep trying to push on us.

I think this completely misrepresents what these people 'know'.... and I employ them, survey them, reach out to them and ask their opinions routinely and have for years.... and is factually inaccurate.

MANY people, especially 'those who work on covid floors' already have had the disease... so they don't need the vaccine. It's a completely unnecessary risk for them... That doesn't mean its especially risky... especially compared to what they face every day. They also often have their own issues, as much as the rest of the population like being pregnant or other potential complications.... AND let's not forget... these people are healthcare workers... they know their specialty... like lab work or drawing blood or taking x-rays... but it doesn't mean they know a damn thing about viruses and how they work. You wouldn't ask the cafeteria worker at your hospital to diagnose you, would you?

Also, let's be honest...
If you get the vaccine and you have a reaction, you may miss work. If you don't get it and you get sick while at work, that's actually a potential workers comp claim.

The response to COVID was overdone primarily because the risk was initially over-represented. Once we understood the risk, we should have backed off on the response... but the government, overwhelmingly the left and media saw 'money in motion' and an opportunity to exploit fear for political gain. That really has nothing to do with 'fear' of the vaccine itself, and I refuse to support comments that seek to similarly exploit fear.

100% agree, Ham. I don't know what nurses GoodOwl has been interviewing about this but my doctor friends do not support his impression AT ALL.

Right here in River City

Dozens of staff members at a Houston-area hospital protested on Monday night against a policy that requires employees to be vaccinated against Covid-19

A March 2021 survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that health care workers had concerns about the vaccines’ newness and their possible side effects, both of which are common reasons for waiting to be vaccinated.

Here is the problem. Normally, getting a new vaccine into distribution is a 5-10 year process costing up to $100 million. And when you start, there is about a 1% chance of success.

Operation Warp Speed condensed that process to 9 months, apparently by cutting out a lot of unnecessary red tape. Bureaucrats love red tape, because it means job security for them. So bureaucrats are terrified of the implications of Warp Speed.

Here's what I find difficult to understand. The people who should be celebrating Warp Speed as a major, and quite frankly incredible, accomplishment of the Trump administration, are the ones complaining about the vaccines. And the bureaucrats seem to be doing nothing but sitting back and laughing and hoping the vaccines turn into another Thalidomide.

(06-08-2021 09:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here is the problem. Normally, getting a new vaccine into distribution is a 5-10 year process costing up to $100 million. And when you start, there is about a 1% chance of success.

Operation Warp Speed condensed that process to 9 months, apparently by cutting out a lot of unnecessary red tape. Bureaucrats love red tape, because it means job security for them. So bureaucrats are terrified of the implications of Warp Speed.

Here's what I find difficult to understand. The people who should be celebrating Warp Speed as a major, and quite frankly incredible, accomplishment of the Trump administration, are the ones complaining about the vaccines. And the bureaucrats seem to be doing nothing but sitting back and laughing and hoping the vaccines turn into another Thalidomide.

Huh??? Why?

(06-08-2021 09:57 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 09:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here is the problem. Normally, getting a new vaccine into distribution is a 5-10 year process costing up to $100 million. And when you start, there is about a 1% chance of success.

Operation Warp Speed condensed that process to 9 months, apparently by cutting out a lot of unnecessary red tape. Bureaucrats love red tape, because it means job security for them. So bureaucrats are terrified of the implications of Warp Speed.

Here's what I find difficult to understand. The people who should be celebrating Warp Speed as a major, and quite frankly incredible, accomplishment of the Trump administration, are the ones complaining about the vaccines. And the bureaucrats seem to be doing nothing but sitting back and laughing and hoping the vaccines turn into another Thalidomide.

Huh??? Why?

To blame Trump?

To validate the need for red tape, and therefore their jobs?

In any case, Numbers used the word "seem".

(06-08-2021 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 09:57 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 09:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here is the problem. Normally, getting a new vaccine into distribution is a 5-10 year process costing up to $100 million. And when you start, there is about a 1% chance of success.

Operation Warp Speed condensed that process to 9 months, apparently by cutting out a lot of unnecessary red tape. Bureaucrats love red tape, because it means job security for them. So bureaucrats are terrified of the implications of Warp Speed.

Here's what I find difficult to understand. The people who should be celebrating Warp Speed as a major, and quite frankly incredible, accomplishment of the Trump administration, are the ones complaining about the vaccines. And the bureaucrats seem to be doing nothing but sitting back and laughing and hoping the vaccines turn into another Thalidomide.

Huh??? Why?

To blame Trump?

To validate the need for red tape, and therefore their jobs?

In any case, Numbers used the word "seem".

That is a bit over-the-top, no?

Does he really think there are a significant number of bureaucrats who would be pleased to see the COVID vaccine turn into a public health disaster?

(06-08-2021 10:33 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 09:57 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 09:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here is the problem. Normally, getting a new vaccine into distribution is a 5-10 year process costing up to $100 million. And when you start, there is about a 1% chance of success.

Operation Warp Speed condensed that process to 9 months, apparently by cutting out a lot of unnecessary red tape. Bureaucrats love red tape, because it means job security for them. So bureaucrats are terrified of the implications of Warp Speed.

Here's what I find difficult to understand. The people who should be celebrating Warp Speed as a major, and quite frankly incredible, accomplishment of the Trump administration, are the ones complaining about the vaccines. And the bureaucrats seem to be doing nothing but sitting back and laughing and hoping the vaccines turn into another Thalidomide.

Huh??? Why?

To blame Trump?

To validate the need for red tape, and therefore their jobs?

In any case, Numbers used the word "seem".

That is a bit over-the-top, no?

Does he really think there are a significant number of bureaucrats who would be pleased to see the COVID vaccine turn into a public health disaster?

You would have to ask him that question.

But I think it depends on the definition of "significant number".

You asked why, and I gave a couple of plausible reasons. Trump-hate has been the defining characteristic of the last five years.