Daviewolf83 said:

---

Mormad said:

---

Daviewolf83 said:

---

Mormad said:

---

Wayland said:

---

Mormad said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Wayland said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

So re: school masking....Union County was one of few local to go no masking. Two weeks in, 375 students with Covid, but due to no masking and the corresponding quarantining process....over 5k students (out of 41k system wide) are out of school on quarantine.
Whatever your views on masking, whatever your views on quarantining based on positive cases, it can't be "healthy" to have 12% of the student pop out -- probably mostly completely healthy, with no arrangement this year for remote learning?

School board is meeting tonight. Will be interesting to see the path they take.

---

Have said it over and over.... and even reposted the video from summer of 2020. Over a year ago, it was a good strategy and discussed even here on this forum.

We need to 'test to stay', use paper antigen tests if exposed... and treat the result as 'good enough' so long as no symptoms when using the farce contact tracing.

Quarantining healthy people is simple minded and bad policy.

---

Right. I think the quarantining policy makes zero sense. So change that...I have no issue with it. Or wear masks. Or test. But You can't say no masks AND have an aggressive quarantining policy just so you can avoid having masks. But its stupid to have 12% of your students sitting out of school. And unlikely to get any better for a month or more.....(without policy change)

---

I was thinking about this and was reminded of a close friend's personal actions in her home and relating it to policy decisions.

Her husband visited a sick family member in the hospital in Indiana who was thought to have "pneumonia." Visited for 30 minutes Saturday, an hour Sunday. He was masked, the patient was not. Patient retested positive Monday. When he got back to Texas Monday and learned of the probable exposure, his wife (both are vaxxed) made him quarantine in the bedroom. He can come out when she's gone and has to go back in when she's 15 min out. He's asymptomatic obviously and waiting to test himself. Probably wouldn't be too accurate to test himself before 3-5 days, but who knows with Delta? It's hitting a little quicker. She has plans to visit their son at okie st this weekend, and that's extremely important to her and wants to avoid exposure to herself as well as potentially her son when she gets there should the hubby all of a sudden become positive.

He's pissed about being quarantined in his room when he's vaxxed and asymptomatic. I get it. I would be too. But i get her desire to keep him distanced also. This trip to see her son is really important to her, and she doesn't want to take any chance with that looming. I get it. His risk, being vaxxed, isn't that great. Her risk, being vaxxed, is even less. But her current situation is calling for NO risk to meet her primary goal. And i don't in any way find that decision making to quarantine an asymptomatic exposure to be simple minded or poor. It's a calculated decision based on her own assessment of personal risk that is reasonably nuanced. Isn't that all we're asking of each other in this time? Assess your risk, choose your actions, and stay home/go home if you're sick? Sure it's another "whatabout," but isn't that what all of our lives consist of when determining nuanced personal risk assessments?

I know there's a difference between personal decisions and policy, but thinking about my friends' dilemma and their choices made me appreciate the sheer gravity and responsibility of the policy makers' decisions. And like with any policy decision, you're simply gonna piss off half the people. I certainly don't have all the answers despite what i think is reasonable experience and a working knowledge of human disease, and I'm thankful I'm not sitting in that elected chair. Tough gig.

---

And what if she goes outside and gets broadsided by a truck on the way to the airport?

The problem is the last year of public health policy and MSM have thrown risk assessment completely out of whack. Now, I don't give two damns if she makes her husband live in the garage for the week, that is between them. Now, the fact that 'when she is out' (provided he is actually positive) he is breathing his aerosolized virus ALL OVER THE HOUSE for her to breathe in when she comes home. Their managed risk plan is whack. If her current plan is really 'NO RISK' then she has a **** plan. If the plan is 'NO RISK', the husband shouldn't be even in the building sharing the same airspace as his wife. But whatever makes them feel better, from my critical view, their plan is bad 'NO RISK' plan and they are victims of oversimplification.

Their plan isn't 'NO RISK', it is 'LESS RISK'.

The sheer gravity of the continued disruption to schooling outweighs the relative risk for the virus in schools. Again, study after study show that school transmission is lower than community transmission. And in this case, as the virus poses VERY little risk to children... 'test to stay' is a reasonable compromise to the YES SIMPLE MINDED quarantining of healthy people.

Number of days Sweden's elementary schools were remote/ not in person in years 2019-2021....

0

— Vinay Prasad, MD MPH 🎙️📷 (@VPrasadMDMPH) September 7, 2021

And other counties like Denmark are going into only sending COVID positive kids home and not relying on contact tracing.

I think 'test to stay' is a fair compromise to the ludicrous practice of amateur contract tracing and quarantining healthy students. We need to keep kids in classrooms and policies that prevent that are damaging.

I really am not picking and I apologize for letting my frustrations come out, but I only do so because I understand that you are a completely reasonable individual. I am forced to stomp up and down like a toddler because policy makers can't find a middle ground.

---

That's actually a really good comparison. I suspect her risk of being broadsided by a truck in Texas is higher than her risk of contracting disease by aerosolized viral particles in the air 15 minutes after her husband left the room, especially given they're both vaxxed and he's currently asymptomatic. That's not a high risk exposure even if he's confirmed positive. There are viral particles all over this hospital, but I've never heard of a confirmed positive from exposure to the air downstream in the hallway. So her risk isn't zero, but i suspect it's pretty close to zero.

I'm not arguing your point on the kids. That's a different situation, and I've never argued a particular position regarding school policy unless it's college. But my wife sits on our school's board, and I'll tell you they struggle with decisions regarding the kids even if the evidential data seems so clear. Lots of differing parental opinions to consider also.

Whether irrational or not, i get the feeling nobody wants to feel the chief Brody moment when he got slapped in the face. Almost zero chance of that, but they can't help their mothering instinct. I don't know that that's it because I'm not on the board, but i can't imagine that's not at least in the backs of their minds??

---

Dr. Gandhi and Dr. Damania made an interesting point in the video I posted over the weekend. They said (I am paraphrasing) "we are all living with Dr. Fauci's and Dr. Walensky's risk tolerance and not our risk tolerance."

---

Yep, saw that, and they're right. But i have a dumb question and will show my ignorance of the policy side of this disease. I admit, other than what's posted here, i haven't really watched anything fauci or walensky have said this entire pandemic. So, in a world in which we elect government officials and appoint boards (ie, decision makers) how do we get around following others' risk tolerances and not our own individual tolerances to maintain some semblance of governance? We can vote to elect or appoint new decision makers that more align with our own views, but that's only going to appease half the people? We can choose to disregard what the elected/appointed enact? But that's bordering on anarchy? Obviously, some rules are less harmful to disregard than others and we certainly consider ourselves free, but we're not a free-for-all society in this regard or any other. So what's the answer, my friend? (I swear I'm not being obtuse or argumentative, i really haven't given it much thought or paid it much attention)

---

Very good question and I have been trying to figure out how best to answer. I have so many thoughts on your simple question. It gets to the heart of how we are governed and the responsibility of those who govern us to act morally and without personal bias. Here are some basic thoughts that should help frame my thinking on your question:

1. What is the endgame for Fauci and Walensky? Is it to turn Covid into an endemic disease? Is it to make it like the yearly flu or a cold? Is it to eradicate Covid from society (ie., zero-Covid)? Unfortunately, they will not way what the endgame is for the US and their failure to do so is a problem. For them, it allows them to constantly "move the goal posts", but when dealing with the general public and ones who you have the ability to control, it is a problem. I will explain more in this next point.

2. As I and others have indicated, the CDC (lead by Walensky) and Fauci on numerous occasions have acted in a way to cause distrust. For example, we have been told all along that we should "follow the science" on all decisions, but on several occasions, they have made policies that clearly are more politically based than science based. I posted one such instance yesterday and it mirrors the same thing the CDC did months ago. This leads me to my next point.

3. In the video I referenced, the two doctors raised an issue that has concerned me as well, regarding the CDC's direction for vaccinated people to start wearing masks. The evidence the CDC presented according to them (I posted about this as well) is weak. Dr. Gandhi discusses the holes in the study the CDC used for their policy shift and presented other studies that shows the policy is misguided (see the latest Singapore study). What this policy change did is harmful on two levels. One, it casted doubt on the part of the vaccine skeptics that the vaccines are useful. Second, the reliance on a study that is less than conclusive and in some ways, flies in the face of other studies, casts doubt on the motivation for this policy change. Policy decisions based on shaky data do not do anything to instill public confidence in those policies.

4. With the policies being discussed and implemented, there seems to be lack of appreciation for those people who have immunity from previous infection. According to the doctors and other people I follow, past infection immunity is a real thing, but Fauci and the CDC seem to ignore this fact. I am sure in the steps Biden is going to outline today (his new 6 step plan), they will ignore it again. In other countries, they recognize immunity from past infection as a reason to act more normally, but the US seems to only focus on vaccines. Again, to me and others who have tried to follow the science, it is frustrating and it breeds further distrust.

Here's the bottom line for me - we need to turn Covid into an endemic disease like the cold and flu. We should stop worrying and reporting in scary news headlines about vaccinated people who become infected. For the vast majority of these people who experience breakthrough cases, they will have mild to no symptoms. A small percentage (5-10%) will have more severe reactions - just like we see every year with the flu. If vaccinated people become infected and have mild to no symptoms, this is exactly what you want to happen. The news should not be that they became infected. It should be they became infected and were not very sick. You want to turn Covid into the cold or a minor flu. It is NEVER going away and Fauci/Walensky need to say this publicly. I actually posted this on my Facebook page a couple of weeks ago and some of my friends lost their minds. Some actually still believe Covid can be eradicated and we need to do everything in our power to keep people from becoming infected (even people who are vaccinated). This is what I meant in my opening point. What is the endgame and when are Fauci/Walensky going to tell people the endgame?

Until our health policy leaders start to communicate endgame and what an endemic virus means, we will continue to see scary stories about people who are vaccinated becoming infected. We will continue to see policies put on place that do not recognize the power of immunity from vaccines and previous infection. For the pandemic to end, it will take immunity. It will not come from limiting attendance at football games. It will not come from mask mandates. It will only come from vaccination and people surviving infection.

Since vaccination, I have chosen to live my life more normally. I have not seen any science or studies that have caused me to reconsider this decision. This is MY risk calculation and it is likely not in alignment with Fauci/Walensky. For example, based on Fauci's reaction on news shows earlier this week, he would not agree with me attending two football games in two days and not wearing a mask for either event (except when I was required to wear one in the NC State press box). He would not agree with me going into restaurants without a mask on, but I have been doing this as well. I recognize I can become infected, but if it happens, I believe I will survive. The odds and the science are in my favor. Will I be a risk to others if I become infected? Possibly, but the risk is extremely small. As Dr. Gandhi pointed out from the very good Singapore study - if vaccinated, infected, and asymptomatic, the chances of me transmitting the virus to others is close to zero. If I am vaccinated, infected and symptomatic, my chance of infecting someone else is extremely small. This is how I have calculated risk and it is based on the science as I understand it. Is it risk free? No, but nothing in life is.

Now to messaging. There is a very good article in The Atlantic on how poorly the Biden Administration has handled messaging. The doctors hit on this point in the video I reference and this article makes it very clear as well. The Biden Administration has failed as messaging and in my view, this failure in messaging is one of the things leading to lower vaccination rates. You can read the full article at the following link:

How Delta Beat Biden

---

Wayland said:

---

Daviewolf83 said:

---

Mormad said:

---

Daviewolf83 said:

---

Mormad said:

---

Wayland said:

---

Mormad said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Wayland said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

So re: school masking....Union County was one of few local to go no masking. Two weeks in, 375 students with Covid, but due to no masking and the corresponding quarantining process....over 5k students (out of 41k system wide) are out of school on quarantine.
Whatever your views on masking, whatever your views on quarantining based on positive cases, it can't be "healthy" to have 12% of the student pop out -- probably mostly completely healthy, with no arrangement this year for remote learning?

School board is meeting tonight. Will be interesting to see the path they take.

---

Have said it over and over.... and even reposted the video from summer of 2020. Over a year ago, it was a good strategy and discussed even here on this forum.

We need to 'test to stay', use paper antigen tests if exposed... and treat the result as 'good enough' so long as no symptoms when using the farce contact tracing.

Quarantining healthy people is simple minded and bad policy.

---

Right. I think the quarantining policy makes zero sense. So change that...I have no issue with it. Or wear masks. Or test. But You can't say no masks AND have an aggressive quarantining policy just so you can avoid having masks. But its stupid to have 12% of your students sitting out of school. And unlikely to get any better for a month or more.....(without policy change)

---

I was thinking about this and was reminded of a close friend's personal actions in her home and relating it to policy decisions.

Her husband visited a sick family member in the hospital in Indiana who was thought to have "pneumonia." Visited for 30 minutes Saturday, an hour Sunday. He was masked, the patient was not. Patient retested positive Monday. When he got back to Texas Monday and learned of the probable exposure, his wife (both are vaxxed) made him quarantine in the bedroom. He can come out when she's gone and has to go back in when she's 15 min out. He's asymptomatic obviously and waiting to test himself. Probably wouldn't be too accurate to test himself before 3-5 days, but who knows with Delta? It's hitting a little quicker. She has plans to visit their son at okie st this weekend, and that's extremely important to her and wants to avoid exposure to herself as well as potentially her son when she gets there should the hubby all of a sudden become positive.

He's pissed about being quarantined in his room when he's vaxxed and asymptomatic. I get it. I would be too. But i get her desire to keep him distanced also. This trip to see her son is really important to her, and she doesn't want to take any chance with that looming. I get it. His risk, being vaxxed, isn't that great. Her risk, being vaxxed, is even less. But her current situation is calling for NO risk to meet her primary goal. And i don't in any way find that decision making to quarantine an asymptomatic exposure to be simple minded or poor. It's a calculated decision based on her own assessment of personal risk that is reasonably nuanced. Isn't that all we're asking of each other in this time? Assess your risk, choose your actions, and stay home/go home if you're sick? Sure it's another "whatabout," but isn't that what all of our lives consist of when determining nuanced personal risk assessments?

I know there's a difference between personal decisions and policy, but thinking about my friends' dilemma and their choices made me appreciate the sheer gravity and responsibility of the policy makers' decisions. And like with any policy decision, you're simply gonna piss off half the people. I certainly don't have all the answers despite what i think is reasonable experience and a working knowledge of human disease, and I'm thankful I'm not sitting in that elected chair. Tough gig.

---

And what if she goes outside and gets broadsided by a truck on the way to the airport?

The problem is the last year of public health policy and MSM have thrown risk assessment completely out of whack. Now, I don't give two damns if she makes her husband live in the garage for the week, that is between them. Now, the fact that 'when she is out' (provided he is actually positive) he is breathing his aerosolized virus ALL OVER THE HOUSE for her to breathe in when she comes home. Their managed risk plan is whack. If her current plan is really 'NO RISK' then she has a **** plan. If the plan is 'NO RISK', the husband shouldn't be even in the building sharing the same airspace as his wife. But whatever makes them feel better, from my critical view, their plan is bad 'NO RISK' plan and they are victims of oversimplification.

Their plan isn't 'NO RISK', it is 'LESS RISK'.

The sheer gravity of the continued disruption to schooling outweighs the relative risk for the virus in schools. Again, study after study show that school transmission is lower than community transmission. And in this case, as the virus poses VERY little risk to children... 'test to stay' is a reasonable compromise to the YES SIMPLE MINDED quarantining of healthy people.

Number of days Sweden's elementary schools were remote/ not in person in years 2019-2021....

0

— Vinay Prasad, MD MPH 🎙️📷 (@VPrasadMDMPH) September 7, 2021

And other counties like Denmark are going into only sending COVID positive kids home and not relying on contact tracing.

I think 'test to stay' is a fair compromise to the ludicrous practice of amateur contract tracing and quarantining healthy students. We need to keep kids in classrooms and policies that prevent that are damaging.

I really am not picking and I apologize for letting my frustrations come out, but I only do so because I understand that you are a completely reasonable individual. I am forced to stomp up and down like a toddler because policy makers can't find a middle ground.

---

That's actually a really good comparison. I suspect her risk of being broadsided by a truck in Texas is higher than her risk of contracting disease by aerosolized viral particles in the air 15 minutes after her husband left the room, especially given they're both vaxxed and he's currently asymptomatic. That's not a high risk exposure even if he's confirmed positive. There are viral particles all over this hospital, but I've never heard of a confirmed positive from exposure to the air downstream in the hallway. So her risk isn't zero, but i suspect it's pretty close to zero.

I'm not arguing your point on the kids. That's a different situation, and I've never argued a particular position regarding school policy unless it's college. But my wife sits on our school's board, and I'll tell you they struggle with decisions regarding the kids even if the evidential data seems so clear. Lots of differing parental opinions to consider also.

Whether irrational or not, i get the feeling nobody wants to feel the chief Brody moment when he got slapped in the face. Almost zero chance of that, but they can't help their mothering instinct. I don't know that that's it because I'm not on the board, but i can't imagine that's not at least in the backs of their minds??

---

Dr. Gandhi and Dr. Damania made an interesting point in the video I posted over the weekend. They said (I am paraphrasing) "we are all living with Dr. Fauci's and Dr. Walensky's risk tolerance and not our risk tolerance."

---

Yep, saw that, and they're right. But i have a dumb question and will show my ignorance of the policy side of this disease. I admit, other than what's posted here, i haven't really watched anything fauci or walensky have said this entire pandemic. So, in a world in which we elect government officials and appoint boards (ie, decision makers) how do we get around following others' risk tolerances and not our own individual tolerances to maintain some semblance of governance? We can vote to elect or appoint new decision makers that more align with our own views, but that's only going to appease half the people? We can choose to disregard what the elected/appointed enact? But that's bordering on anarchy? Obviously, some rules are less harmful to disregard than others and we certainly consider ourselves free, but we're not a free-for-all society in this regard or any other. So what's the answer, my friend? (I swear I'm not being obtuse or argumentative, i really haven't given it much thought or paid it much attention)

---

Very good question and I have been trying to figure out how best to answer. I have so many thoughts on your simple question. It gets to the heart of how we are governed and the responsibility of those who govern us to act morally and without personal bias. Here are some basic thoughts that should help frame my thinking on your question:

1. What is the endgame for Fauci and Walensky? Is it to turn Covid into an endemic disease? Is it to make it like the yearly flu or a cold? Is it to eradicate Covid from society (ie., zero-Covid)? Unfortunately, they will not way what the endgame is for the US and their failure to do so is a problem. For them, it allows them to constantly "move the goal posts", but when dealing with the general public and ones who you have the ability to control, it is a problem. I will explain more in this next point.

2. As I and others have indicated, the CDC (lead by Walensky) and Fauci on numerous occasions have acted in a way to cause distrust. For example, we have been told all along that we should "follow the science" on all decisions, but on several occasions, they have made policies that clearly are more politically based than science based. I posted one such instance yesterday and it mirrors the same thing the CDC did months ago. This leads me to my next point.

3. In the video I referenced, the two doctors raised an issue that has concerned me as well, regarding the CDC's direction for vaccinated people to start wearing masks. The evidence the CDC presented according to them (I posted about this as well) is weak. Dr. Gandhi discusses the holes in the study the CDC used for their policy shift and presented other studies that shows the policy is misguided (see the latest Singapore study). What this policy change did is harmful on two levels. One, it casted doubt on the part of the vaccine skeptics that the vaccines are useful. Second, the reliance on a study that is less than conclusive and in some ways, flies in the face of other studies, casts doubt on the motivation for this policy change. Policy decisions based on shaky data do not do anything to instill public confidence in those policies.

4. With the policies being discussed and implemented, there seems to be lack of appreciation for those people who have immunity from previous infection. According to the doctors and other people I follow, past infection immunity is a real thing, but Fauci and the CDC seem to ignore this fact. I am sure in the steps Biden is going to outline today (his new 6 step plan), they will ignore it again. In other countries, they recognize immunity from past infection as a reason to act more normally, but the US seems to only focus on vaccines. Again, to me and others who have tried to follow the science, it is frustrating and it breeds further distrust.

Here's the bottom line for me - we need to turn Covid into an endemic disease like the cold and flu. We should stop worrying and reporting in scary news headlines about vaccinated people who become infected. For the vast majority of these people who experience breakthrough cases, they will have mild to no symptoms. A small percentage (5-10%) will have more severe reactions - just like we see every year with the flu. If vaccinated people become infected and have mild to no symptoms, this is exactly what you want to happen. The news should not be that they became infected. It should be they became infected and were not very sick. You want to turn Covid into the cold or a minor flu. It is NEVER going away and Fauci/Walensky need to say this publicly. I actually posted this on my Facebook page a couple of weeks ago and some of my friends lost their minds. Some actually still believe Covid can be eradicated and we need to do everything in our power to keep people from becoming infected (even people who are vaccinated). This is what I meant in my opening point. What is the endgame and when are Fauci/Walensky going to tell people the endgame?

Until our health policy leaders start to communicate endgame and what an endemic virus means, we will continue to see scary stories about people who are vaccinated becoming infected. We will continue to see policies put on place that do not recognize the power of immunity from vaccines and previous infection. For the pandemic to end, it will take immunity. It will not come from limiting attendance at football games. It will not come from mask mandates. It will only come from vaccination and people surviving infection.

Since vaccination, I have chosen to live my life more normally. I have not seen any science or studies that have caused me to reconsider this decision. This is MY risk calculation and it is likely not in alignment with Fauci/Walensky. For example, based on Fauci's reaction on news shows earlier this week, he would not agree with me attending two football games in two days and not wearing a mask for either event (except when I was required to wear one in the NC State press box). He would not agree with me going into restaurants without a mask on, but I have been doing this as well. I recognize I can become infected, but if it happens, I believe I will survive. The odds and the science are in my favor. Will I be a risk to others if I become infected? Possibly, but the risk is extremely small. As Dr. Gandhi pointed out from the very good Singapore study - if vaccinated, infected, and asymptomatic, the chances of me transmitting the virus to others is close to zero. If I am vaccinated, infected and symptomatic, my chance of infecting someone else is extremely small. This is how I have calculated risk and it is based on the science as I understand it. Is it risk free? No, but nothing in life is.

Now to messaging. There is a very good article in The Atlantic on how poorly the Biden Administration has handled messaging. The doctors hit on this point in the video I reference and this article makes it very clear as well. The Biden Administration has failed as messaging and in my view, this failure in messaging is one of the things leading to lower vaccination rates. You can read the full article at the following link:

How Delta Beat Biden

---

Davie for CDC Director?

---

statefan91 said:

---

Fauci on pediatric vaccine timing, talking to @apoorva_nyc: Pfizer plans to submit data late Sept/early Oct, Moderna a month later. Then, IF the FDA “deems this is an emergency situation for children,” it could authorize by EUA. If all goes as expected, <12 vaccines in November.

— Claire Cain Miller (@clairecm) September 9, 2021

---

bigeric said:

---

Davie for President!

---

Quote:

---

John Tukey once said that the collective noun for a group of statisticians is a quarrel.

---

Quote:

---

Science remains the best thing that can happen to humans, provided it can be both tolerant and tolerated.

---

BBW12OG said:

---

wolfman18 said:

---

But MUH RIGHTS!

---

Do elaborate. Obviously you have something intelligent to add to the discussion. Please share.

As far as Davie goes the information he has provided here is a hell of a lot better than that which is disseminated by the MSM propaganda machine, the lefties and most of all, the Sleepy Joe ****show.

This was/is nothing but political.

As far as "MUH RIGHTS"...well.... I'll let you explain before I voice my opinion.

---

Wayland said:

---

Here is a tweet about the 6 points. I haven't read the plan yet. Looks like using OSHA to require vaccines.

JUST IN: President Biden's new "Path out of the Pandemic" will include six major components, as outlined below. New vaccination mandates in businesses with over 100 employees will affect over 80 million people in the private sector.

See details here:https://t.co/bpRcQ9zgE7 pic.twitter.com/6MM8X3jcYK

— Benjy Renton (@bhrenton) September 9, 2021

Admittedly, some of the other 'support' stuff isn't awful. But seems to be a whole lot of hype for this SIX POINT PLAN which is mostly kind of stuff we should have been doing all along (outside the mandates).

---

BBW12OG said:

---

wolfman18 said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

wolfman18 said:

---

But MUH RIGHTS!

---

Do elaborate. Obviously you have something intelligent to add to the discussion. Please share.

As far as Davie goes the information he has provided here is a hell of a lot better than that which is disseminated by the MSM propaganda machine, the lefties and most of all, the Sleepy Joe ****show.

This was/is nothing but political.

As far as "MUH RIGHTS"...well.... I'll let you explain before I voice my opinion.

---

It was a joke, which is tough to decipher on a message board.

I sincerely apologize for not adding anything intelligent to this conversation. I know your posts add 100% factual and unbiased information.

---

I've never posted anything on this thread other than my opinions and links to twitter or new sites. If I have please post it and prove me wrong. I'll wait patiently.

Also I have never claimed to be unbiased. I could care less if you know I could care less about you and your MARXIST/COMMUNIST beliefs.

Your party is that of science right? Follow the science right? Well the information that several medical professionals on this site has proven that your party doesn't know their richards from a door knob.

The lefties stated this was NEVER about politics which has turned out to be the biggest lie since "if you like your Dr. you can keep your Dr." But.. I digress. If nothing the left has proven in the last 8 months is they will at any point regardless of appearances do a 180 and say the exact opposite.

It's OK.. their followers are mostly spineless sheep that love nothing more than to be bossed around. Very submissive flock they are.

---

Wayland said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wayland said:

---

Because SCIENCE!!! (Note: I disagree with the mandate)

NEWS: White House official tells me USPS workers are NOT included in President Biden’s vaccine requirement, but “we strongly encourage them to comply with these standards.”

That’s a massive chunk of the federal workforce — 644k & growing — that’s not required to be vaccinated. https://t.co/oWwMHqqIqj

— Jacob Bogage (@jacobbogage) September 9, 2021

all you need is a strong union and the ability to cripple the country

---

That right there is enough to invalidate this STUPID mandate!! You just can't exempt people because they have unions. Equal protection is paramount.

---

This is more about chest-puffing and deflecting blame if things go south with a winter wave than anything else.

---