Wuhan Coronavirus: Megathread - Got too big

[Trust Me I Know]

I guess whoever set up these vaccine shilling bots was hungry.
View attachment 2803532

I've seen what the kitchens at KFC look like. This does not inspire to take the jab.

 

[Derka Derka]

I guess whoever set up these vaccine shilling bots was hungry.
View attachment 2803532

variation of ..

I'm vaccinated and, no, I don't know what's in it—neither this vaccine nor the ones I had as a child; or what’s in that Big Mac, that pumpkin-spice flavoring, or in hot dogs or chicken tenders; or what’s in other drugs used for other treatments

E74: Reflections on COVID19 Version 2.0 in 2021

Check out this great listen on Audible.com. "IF YOU LOVE A HEALTHCARE WORKER, PRAY DAILY THAT GOD WILL RENEW THEIR PASSION, JOY, AND CONTENTMENT IN THEIR CALLING. BECAUSE WHILE THE WORLD FIGHTS OVER A SHOT, THE MEDICAL FIELD IS FIGHTING TO KEEP THEIR DESIRE TO SERVE" And here I include t...

www.audible.com

 

[contradiction of terns]

Has anyone mentioned the foiled anti-vaxxer murder plot from Germany?

Vaccine Opponents in Germany Investigated Over Plot to Kill State Governor

The authorities in the eastern German city of Dresden said Wednesday that they had seized weapons after searching the homes of a group of vaccine opponents who they said planned to kill the Saxony state governor over his support for coronavirus measures.

Five men and one woman, between the ages of 32 and 64, are being investigated, the prosecutor’s office in Dresden, the capital of Saxony, confirmed on Wednesday. The authorities said the group communicated their plans to kill the state governor, Michael Kretschmer, over the Telegram messenger service. A public broadcaster first reported on the alleged plot last week.

The allegations come as anti-vaccination activists and those protesting Covid restrictions have become more emboldened. In recent weeks tens of thousands have marched on nightly “walks” all over Germany. Often supported by neo-Nazis, protesters have attacked police and journalists. A group of torch-bearing demonstrators first gathered in front of the house of the Saxony state health minister earlier this month. Since then several other gatherings in front of the homes of politicians have been stopped by the police.

 

[Hollywood Hitler]

I guess whoever set up these vaccine shilling bots was hungry.
View attachment 2803532

That argument is stupid because
1) You can look it up
2) Nobody is ostracizing you from society for not eating KFC.

 

[Yuri_]

I guess whoever set up these vaccine shilling bots was hungry.
View attachment 2803532

variation of ..

E74: Reflections on COVID19 Version 2.0 in 2021

Check out this great listen on Audible.com. "IF YOU LOVE A HEALTHCARE WORKER, PRAY DAILY THAT GOD WILL RENEW THEIR PASSION, JOY, AND CONTENTMENT IN THEIR CALLING. BECAUSE WHILE THE WORLD FIGHTS OVER A SHOT, THE MEDICAL FIELD IS FIGHTING TO KEEP THEIR DESIRE TO SERVE" And here I include t...

www.audible.com

Call me crazy, but I think there might be a small difference between eating some standard junkfood, and injecting untested medication into your arm

 

[Keystone]

I guess whoever set up these vaccine shilling bots was hungry.
View attachment 2803532

I may not know what's in those herbs and spices, but it doesn't matter since they're herbs and spices. Humans have been using and consuming herbs and spices for literally thousands of years with zero problems (if you aren't a dumbass who shoves them up your nose or something, obviously).

I don't, however, know what's in these worthless "vaccines" made by companies staffed with people who have repeatedly communicated a legitimately genocidal hatred for me for not taking them and asking the simplest of fucking questions about them.

 

[PaleTay]

Even the really liberal sites are ripping Ontario for slashing sports capacity.

 

[Super-Chevy454]

Even the really liberal sites are ripping Ontario for slashing sports capacity.

I like to know which sites who are angry against Ontario decision?

 

[PaleTay]

I like to know which sites who are angry against Ontario decision?

HFboards

 

[UVB-76]

People also choose to eat KFC, and if after decades of consuming fast food their ticker stops working, that was their choice.
If I had to be forced to eat KFC in order to leave the house, I'd sure be weary of what's going on behind the scenes.

Best intentions, trusting government and advisers and erring on the side of caution could all be used as rational and understandable explanations to why people masked up and locked down in April 2020.

Not just that. All the conspiracy schizos like me were noticing that something was going on in Chy-nah! and the narrative was to throw caution out the window. Nothing's happening you racist, it's just the flu, no proof of human to human contagion, okay there's proof of contagion but no proof it's airborne, no we shouldn't suspend travel, no it's not a pandemic even though it's starting to spread all over.
They had the chance to err on the side of caution and decided to sperg out when it was already too late.

"The authorities said the group communicated their plans to kill the state governor, Michael Kretschmer, over the Telegram messenger service"

For fuck's sake at this point about a hundred IRL fedposts have been thwarted on Telegram and people still haven't learned?

 

[Open Window Maniac]

Just think how worse it would have been!

Let's not and say we did.

 

[Super-Chevy454]

HFboards

Thanks! :-) I saw a good post who was worth to share.

Maple Leafs and Senators going down to 50% arena capacity

[MEDIA]

hfboards.mandatory.com

Except it is. It's never gonna be over so might as well scrap pro sports.

What's the freaking death rate anyways these days? Not very high. Funny fact for everyone here, but yesterday there was 673k new cases of covid. On average there are 98 million new cases of gonorrhea each year which works out to about 273k per day too but you don't see anyone worked up about that do you? I know which one I'd rather have lmao

(Imagine if they reported those numbers everyday lol)

You can stir anyone up into a frenzy about any disease out there if you focus on it enough. Sorry to all the people who have died, just like I'm sorry to anyone that's ever died before their time regardless of what it's from. But covid is a thing that's here to stay that's the reality, and people will die from it every day moving forward until the end of time just like people have died from many things every day since the beginning of time.

Sorry not Sorry, I'm just sick of this. Now watch my post be deleted even though I accurately cited real facts and statistics just because my opinion isn't the right one. That will only be proof of what the world has become.

 

[Focken Kiwi]

My guess is that those 26 states are Democratic run.

From what I read, the injunction is still in effect but only for the states that sued. Those states were: "Louisiana, Montana, Arizona, Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, West Virginia, Kentucky and Ohio." You don't get to be a fence sitter on this topic and wait for the outcome.

 

[XANA]

It will never cease to amuse me when double or freshly triple-vaxed people party, it comes out that one group member (or their family member) came down with Covid around that time, and the entire group loses their minds.

It's almost as if they know deep down that even the boosters are a farce more than anything and that they're still just the same as the dirty unvaccinated.

 

[Dededon't]

I think a lot of people misinterpret what we think. But I don’t think we’re anti-jab. We are just waiting for the actual 100% effective vaccine that doesn’t need 20 boosters every other year. Just one, none of this multiple companies with multiple vaccines with varying degrees of success. Just one, simple, effective, vaccine.

I've been labeled anti-vax several times despite the fact that I am actually just anti-mandate. I really don't care if people want to get it, that's their business, but forcing people into making a medical decision like that should rub anyone the wrong way... or at least that's what I thought. It seems suggesting that is controversial these days.

 

[X Prime]

So, if the CDC gets rid of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine in April, what happens to people who qualified for mandates with it?

 

[George Lucas]

Oh man, after seeing all these trolls invade our thread I’ve decided to take the vax! They really convinced that we’re a bunch of uninformed retards who can’t make our own medical decisions.

 

[Enjoy_the_Soylence]

Has anyone mentioned the foiled anti-vaxxer murder plot from Germany?

Vaccine Opponents in Germany Investigated Over Plot to Kill State Governor

It's the 'if you could go back in time and kill Hitler' conundrum for a new era.

Spoiler

KFC copycat recipe:

• 1 large egg
• 1 cup buttermilk
• 1 (3-pound) chicken, cut into 6 pieces
• 1 cup all-purpose flour
• 2 teaspoons salt
• 1 teaspoon dried sage
• 1 teaspoon freshly ground black pepper
• 2 tablespoons paprika
• 1 teaspoon ground oregano
• 1 tablespoon onion salt
• 1 teaspoon dried marjoram
• 1 teaspoon dried basil
• 1 teaspoon chili powder
• 1 teaspoon garlic powder
• 2 tablespoons Accent (MSG seasoning)
• 1 (24-ounce) container lard, enough to cover chicken in fryer

 

[Some Badger]

I've been labeled anti-vax several times despite the fact that I am actually just anti-mandate. I really don't care if people want to get it, that's their business, but forcing people into making a medical decision like that should rub anyone the wrong way... or at least that's what I thought. It seems suggesting that is controversial these days.

That seems to be the common stance among everyone I've met who has expressed concerns over the vaccine, myself included. I started out being on the fence cause I wanted to wait a few months for the side effects to be documented only for my mood to sour on the whole thing once the idea of vaccine passports began floating around the news all over the world back in April. I've never objected to friends and family getting vaccinated cause it's their choice and I don't care, but I've lost count of how many times my mom has called me up to persuade to get the jab whenever there was a spike in cases.

A Branch Covidian's brain seems to just turn off the moment you question the mandates. They don't see anything objectionable about threatening entire populations with unemployment and unpersoning for not wanting to take a leaky vaccine that has not only been proven to be ineffective, but in a lot of cases has caused heart inflammation. They have no qualms about creating an unemployable underclass who according to them, deserve to be destitute and shunned for the crime of questioning THE SCIENCE™.

Hell, even the people I know who got vaccinated early think the mandates are ridiculous. My best friend got it in February cause he thought taking it would put us on the track to normalcy again (and also cause he's a deathfat tbh), only to regret his decision once basically every government in the developed world made it clear that they were gonna milk this for as long as possible and take the most totalitarian measures to get there.

 

[SCSI]

Court reinstates health worker coronavirus vaccine mandate in half of US

A federal appeals court on Wednesday effectively revived a Biden administration vaccine mandate for health workers at hospitals that receive federal funding in roughly half of the U.S.The procedura…

thehill.com

Court reinstates health worker coronavirus vaccine mandate in half of…

archived 15 Dec 2021 20:14:41 UTC

archive.vn

Time to start sweating, health workers! The CMS mandate has been revived in 26 states.

The silver lining to this decision is it wasn't based on anything having to do with the CMS mandate specifically, only a disagreement on the extent of the judiciary's power beyond the parties directly involved. (Archive)

The case posed the question of whether one district court should be able to make a binding judgment for the entire U.S. The Fifth Circuit said the lower court “gave little justification for issuing an injunction outside the 14 States that brought this suit.”

Leaves the door open for the 26 states now exposed to the CMS mandate again to file their own suits, and also doesn't really add anything that might hurt further litigation efforts in this case. Awkward for healthcare workers in the 26 affected states, though. The citation for this case is State of Louisiana v. Becerra, for anyone interested in keeping an eye on the court docket or reading some of the briefings.

---

USA CoVax Mandate Legal News Roundup -- "The Big One" in the 6th Circuit and Military Edition

In Re: OSHA Covid Rule (aka 6th Circuit OSHA Mandate)

Some movement on the federal mandate that is probably the one of greatest interest to the largest number of readers in this thread - the private employer mandate that's currently in the hands of the 6th Circuit, what I'm going to call "The Big One" for clarity. A few hours ago there was finally a decision by the 6th Circuit on whether they were going to hear it before a standard three judge panel, or a full en banc hearing before all 16 judges. They've decided to go with a three judge panel. (Archive)

A federal appeals court in Cincinnati will allow a three-judge panel hear the legal challenge to the Biden administration’s contentious Covid-19 shot-or-test rule, leaving open the possibility that a Democratic appointee-dominated tribunal rules on that emergency regulation.

I'm not thrilled by this for a case this important. En banc would've guaranteed some judges hostile to blocking the mandate, but it would also smooth that out by including what is likely to be a larger number of judges open to continuing to block it. Going with a three judge panel means it's risky -- you could get unlucky and get all three (possibly the only three in the circuit) who are mandate-friendly and who will end the injunction, or you could be luckier and get two or three who will keep the injunction in place. It's even less predictable because a trio panel can pull from inactive judges who aren't currently on the bench.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on Wednesday rejected petitions seeking initial review of the measure by the court’s full complement of active-status judges, which is composed of 11 Republican appointees and five selected by Democratic presidents. Twenty-seven states with Republican attorneys general, the Republican National Committee, and other challengers sought full court review.

The three-judge panel will be drawn from the Sixth Circuit’s roster of 28 active- and senior-status judges, which includes 20 jurists nominated by GOP presidents.

It was a close decision.

The requests to consider the OSHA emergency rule en banc failed to win support from a majority of the appeals court’s active judges. They split evenly, with eight judges on either side of the issue, according to Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton’s dissenting opinion.

Why did they deny? Pulled from the actual court opinion:

This case shows the folly of initial hearing en banc. The massive docket and profusion of briefs, as in an especially complex matter before a district court, require focused consideration by a devoted panel. En banc hearing does indeed put “all hands on deck.” C.J. Sutton Dissent at 11. In a case as important, accelerated, and briefing-filled as this one, however, gathering all hands on deck would have strained the resources of the sixteen active judges, requiring each of us to review the voluminous record and the relevant underlying legal doctrines. What’s more, it would have done so for no discernable purpose: the case already sits before three thoughtful, independent judges on the panel who have spent the past weeks steeped in this matter. We properly leave the matter in their hands.

At least nothing in here sounds too bad. Looks like their concerns were mostly to do with "it's too slow for a case that moves this fast and it'd be a huge disruptive pain in the ass."

Some more details on the judge pool that will now be in play.

GOP-appointed judges on active status outnumber jurists tapped by Democratic presidents by a 20-to-eight margin, including 11-to-five edge among active-status judges. But in practical terms, the Republican advantage is more like 19-9 circuit-wide and 10-6 among active judges. Judge Helen White was nominated by a Democratic president before she was stonewalled by the Senate, renominated by a Republican president, and finally confirmed.

I attached a copy of the order and the dissenting opinion (written by the judges who wanted to hear this en banc). It's all mushed together in one document because someone either at Bloomberg or the federal court doesn't know how to format a PDF. Skip to page 21 to get to the start of the order deciding it'll be three judges, and keep reading to quickly get to the opinion on why en banc was denied. Sutton's dissenting opinion starts on page 26.

... Ah screw it, I'm bored and Sutton's dissent was a good read, I'll sperg about it a bit. If you're interested, open the spoiler.

Spoiler: Legal Sperganalysis

Sutton's undeniably hostile to the mandate as it currently stands, especially without a firm, clear legislative grant of power to OSHA.

Third, the setting of these requirements—authority to set “emergency temporary standards” without complying with the notice-and-comment process—confirms the narrowness of this authority and its inapplicability here. Start with “emergency.” The Secretary does not invoke this power based on a sudden revelation that the virus presents a serious health risk. How could he? He relies on something else—the increased availability of vaccines. That development, however, does not heighten health risks; it alleviates them—and it’s hardly a new development anyway. What, moreover, is “temporary” about a vaccination? A reluctant or coerced vaccination cannot be undone if the Secretary changes course during the notice-and comment process or if the proposed rule exceeds the Secretary’s authority. All of the Secretary’s emergency decrees to date, even the ones invalidated by the courts, have involved truly temporary measures to protect workers from certain hazards at work until the notice-and comment process ends. Ready access to free vaccinations may not have quelled the pandemic as quickly as the Secretary, or any of us, would like. But that reality does not justify, much less justify clearly, a sudden invocation of an emergency medical power at roughly the two-year anniversary of the pandemic merely because the Secretary determines that not enough Americans are vaccinated.

You can't unring a bell, and you can't untake medication. Sutton's one of the first judges I've seen actually hit this point, when talking about consequences. He's also one of the first to point out the problems with the timeliness of this "emergency" declaration. Emergency implies urgency and immediacy -- waiting 2 years flies in the face of that.

For my part, the resolution of this conflict between existing law and the Secretary’s proposed policy is not particularly hard. What makes the case difficult are the ongoing
challenges of the pandemic and the health-and-safety benefits of obtaining vaccinations. The challenges presented by the pandemic are serious, no one can deny. The record confirms what common experience shows—“that the public has a strong interest in combating the spread” of a virus that has prematurely ended over three-quarters of a million American lives. Ala. Ass’n of Realtors, 141 S. Ct. at 2490. The record also shows the utility of vaccinations. The medical studies to date show that vaccinated individuals face fewer risks of getting the virus and, for those who still suffer breakthrough infections, fewer risks of serious symptoms or death. It is the rare federal judge, indeed the rare employee in the third branch, I suspect, who has not gotten the message.

An example of how important accurate, extensive stats are and how vital it is for their analysis and interpretation to be honest. How many judges, I wonder, are basing their decisions on these mandates on misleading or just outdated stats on how effective these vaccines are, and how many would make completely different decisions if someone who could walk them through accurate numbers could talk to them? Can you imagine one of these cases going through and upholding the mandate based on studies about Pfizer vs Wuhan, when the actual facts on the ground now are Pfizer vs Necronomicron, which gives 0 fucks about all current vaccines that employees would be forced to take? Kafkaesque.

But the issue here is not that simple. No matter the policy benefits of a well-intended regulation, a court may not enforce it if the agency’s reach exceeds a statute’s grasp. Once
before, in the throes of another threat to the country, the executive branch claimed it needed to seize control of the country’s steel mills as a “necessary” measure “to avert a national
catastrophe.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 582 (1952). But that threat, like this one, did not permit the second branch to act without authorization from the first
branch. Id. at 588–89. As the Supreme Court recently explained in invalidating an eviction moratorium promulgated by the Center for Disease Control, “our system does not permit agencies to act unlawfully even in pursuit of desirable ends.” Ala. Ass’n of Realtors, 141 S. Ct. at 2490. Shortcuts in furthering preferred policies, even urgent policies, rarely end well, and they always undermine, sometimes permanently, American vertical and horizontal separation of powers, the true mettle of the U.S. Constitution, the true long-term guardian of liberty.

Huge separation of powers concerns, and Sutton points out the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. He's also got an eye to what the long-term damage to overall governmental structure a short-term exception can do. I like this guy, he seems to be an example of what a judge is actually supposed to be.

We likely will not be the final decisionmakers in this case, given the prospect of review by the U.S. Supreme Court. And the existence of the en banc motion gives the judges of our Court the option to offer their perspectives on the stay motion, in opinions concurring in the denial of initial hearing en banc or dissenting from it.

No beating around the bush, everyone knows this is destined for the Supreme Court. But he wants the opportunity for as many judicial voices as possible to get their thoughts in front of the Big Nine. If you're wondering why he bothered writing an extensive opinion analyzing the actual case over the number of judges who were going to hear this, here you go. If you're not sure you're going to be able to get in the front door, slip it in an open window.

Starting at page 33, he proceeds with what's basically a walkthrough of how he thinks the case should be decided. I'm not going to really go into that because that'd be a paper in itself, but these couple of snippets will give you an idea of the core of his argument at the federal level.

Today’s emergency rule is not an everyday exercise of federal power. The Secretary claims authority to require 80 million Americans—in virtually every type of American business there is—to obtain a COVID-19 vaccine or, in the alternative, to undertake a weekly COVID-19 test and wear a mask throughout each workday.

In passing the Occupational Safety and Health Act, Congress did not clearly give the Secretary authority to require workers to undertake a medical procedure like a vaccine or a medical test, whether under his general authority to regulate “employees” in the workplace or under his specific authority to issue “emergency temporary standards.”

A national vaccinate-or-test mandate likewise is unprecedented, whether with respect to OSHA or any other federal agency, presumably because the intrusion on individual liberty is serious and because, in OSHA’s case, the required medical procedures do not comfortably map onto workplace-specific protective remedies.

In applying this federalism clear-statement canon, it’s worth remembering that the only Supreme Court cases that permitted a government to impose a vaccination mandate on individuals arose from the States, not the National Government. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905); Zucht v. King, 260 U.S. 174 (1922). In upholding a vaccination requirement against a substantive due process challenge, the U.S. Supreme Court reasoned that “[t]he safety and the health of the people of [a state] are, in the first instance, for that [state] to guard and protect” and “are matters that do not ordinarily concern the national government.”

And look what's popped back up again -- Jacobson, but in the context of a federalism argument against a federal, rather than state mandate. Remember that Roe and Casey arguably share space with Jacobson. The next six months are going to be a big deal for medical autonomy law, however it plays out and whatever your stances are on this ugly Jenga tower of cases, statutes, and administrative orders.

There's a big section after this analyzing OSHA and employment context stuff, which I'm going to skip because, as interesting as it is, it's more narrow and technical. But I am going to end with a good point Sutton raises when he circles back around to the emergency power stuff.

The statute gives the Secretary authority to issue an emergency rule only for six months. 29 U.S.C. § 655(c)(2)–(3). It does not mention any authority to extend the rule for another six months. To our knowledge, the Secretary has never used this narrow authority to extend an emergency rule for another six months. All of this prompts a question: Does the Secretary expect to finish the notice-and-comment process with respect to this uniquely important and uniquely wide-ranging rule by May 5, 2022, when the emergency rule dissolves? That seems improbable. As our circuit has come to appreciate, this rule affects a lot of industries and a lot of people. Consistent with that reality, the Secretary has already granted one 45-day extension of time, extending the end of the public comment period from December 6, 2021, to mid-January 2022. The six-month nature of the Secretary’s emergency-rule authority highlights the unusual nature of its exercise today.

Hmmmmmmm...

Military

In better news, Kansas Senator Roger Marshall managed to get a clause added to the federal National Defense Authorization Act that will soften the blow a little for any military members who get fired because they refuse the CoVax. (Archive)

Marshall was able to add language to the National Defense Authorization Act — the bill that funds the military — to say that people fired from the military for refusing the vaccine must be honorably discharged or discharged under honorable conditions.

Honorable discharges are usually reserved for people who were rated good or excellent for their service. It means service members who are discharged for refusing the vaccine would still be eligible for most of their military benefits.

“We’re just taking that worst case scenario off the table,” said Sen. Kevin Cramer, a Republican from North Dakota, who cosponsored the amendment. “That relieves the commanders, it relieves the Department of Defense, it relieves even the joint chiefs of staff from making a different decision. And they should be relieved with that relief.”