Sure he did. Free shots were being given out while he was still Prez. Fully on him. And again, profits due to Pfizer inventing product the government & lots of people wanted. Americna as apple pie.
Covid and vaccinations
- Thread starter billoliver40
- Start date
- Status
False. He did not ramp it up by making it mandatory and that is what I am posting about. He created/started what many on the left wanted sure but, it was shifted into high gear when mandated.
If mandating is as American as apple pie then your living in the wrong America.
Last edited:
and this is how it always starts..........they just keep chipping away....................
If you look at Spain the variant went rampant. When it does, vaccinated or not, you follow the same bell curve. What you are saying is that the chart shows that a country vaccinated at 78-87% experienced the same exact bell curve that pretty much every other country experienced. Again, great try but think before you post propaganda.
Maybe they have earlier, but first time I've seen WSJ take a more nuanced view of the vaccines:
"So why not give everyone a third shot? Many people who got two shots are still in the therapeutic window and wouldn’t benefit from a third shot. For them, a booster would risk gratuitous inflammation that would push them above the window. The prospect of such inflammation wasn’t a deal breaker with the second shot. Months of follow-up revealed instances of heart inflammation, especially in young male patients, but these were rare and almost always mild and transient, and Covid itself can produce far worse heart inflammation. Other symptoms of inflammation, such as fever, fatigue and headache were far more common but lasted for only a day or two.
There could be other, more serious effects of inflammation that would take years to become apparent. In other contexts, strong inflammation has been shown to disrupt the “blood-brain barrier” and contribute to the progression of Alzheimer’s disease. That possibility isn’t a reasonable argument against a second shot because the inflammation from Covid itself can be far stronger, and the second shot reduces that risk by providing solid protection against serious disease.
For third shots, the calculation changes. A booster makes sense for most older people and for the immunocompromised because they tended to get lower efficacy and little inflammation from the second shot. A third shot puts them back into the therapeutic window. But healthy young people typically had good efficacy from the two-shot regimen, and many had strong inflammation.
The Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention struggled with such issues and recommended a third shot for the elderly and the immunocompromised, but not for healthy young people. Advisory committee members suggested that further research was needed to refine these initial recommendations.
Some such research will be at the population level, advising about particular ages and vaccines. Other recommendations will be more personalized,..."
Personalized recommendations are particularly important for the more than 100 million Americans who have already recovered from Covid. Their immunity and risk of inflammation from vaccines is variable. But when health officials refuse to take account of natural immunity, they neglect the needs and concerns of a large segment of the population and give the public a reason to think experts are not conveying the whole truth.
We also need answers to other questions about the therapeutic window for vaccines, such as whether taking anti-inflammatory drugs after vaccination is good because it reduces inflammation or bad because it could reduce the vaccine’s effectiveness.
Radio hosts often advise listeners to “do your own research.” What we really need is research that gives the CDC and FDA the data needed to refine their initial recommendations on third shots. The recommendations that will be most acceptable to the populace are the ones that promote trust by helping assess whether a particular patient would benefit from the shot."
"So why not give everyone a third shot? Many people who got two shots are still in the therapeutic window and wouldn’t benefit from a third shot. For them, a booster would risk gratuitous inflammation that would push them above the window. The prospect of such inflammation wasn’t a deal breaker with the second shot. Months of follow-up revealed instances of heart inflammation, especially in young male patients, but these were rare and almost always mild and transient, and Covid itself can produce far worse heart inflammation. Other symptoms of inflammation, such as fever, fatigue and headache were far more common but lasted for only a day or two.
There could be other, more serious effects of inflammation that would take years to become apparent. In other contexts, strong inflammation has been shown to disrupt the “blood-brain barrier” and contribute to the progression of Alzheimer’s disease. That possibility isn’t a reasonable argument against a second shot because the inflammation from Covid itself can be far stronger, and the second shot reduces that risk by providing solid protection against serious disease.
For third shots, the calculation changes. A booster makes sense for most older people and for the immunocompromised because they tended to get lower efficacy and little inflammation from the second shot. A third shot puts them back into the therapeutic window. But healthy young people typically had good efficacy from the two-shot regimen, and many had strong inflammation.
The Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention struggled with such issues and recommended a third shot for the elderly and the immunocompromised, but not for healthy young people. Advisory committee members suggested that further research was needed to refine these initial recommendations.
Some such research will be at the population level, advising about particular ages and vaccines. Other recommendations will be more personalized,..."
Personalized recommendations are particularly important for the more than 100 million Americans who have already recovered from Covid. Their immunity and risk of inflammation from vaccines is variable. But when health officials refuse to take account of natural immunity, they neglect the needs and concerns of a large segment of the population and give the public a reason to think experts are not conveying the whole truth.
We also need answers to other questions about the therapeutic window for vaccines, such as whether taking anti-inflammatory drugs after vaccination is good because it reduces inflammation or bad because it could reduce the vaccine’s effectiveness.
Radio hosts often advise listeners to “do your own research.” What we really need is research that gives the CDC and FDA the data needed to refine their initial recommendations on third shots. The recommendations that will be most acceptable to the populace are the ones that promote trust by helping assess whether a particular patient would benefit from the shot."
Guess who was flat KILLING it making money during that time? People still working in Florida, not dead of course.
Fine on the Trump not mandating part. But overwhelmingly the number of shots given were not government-mandated. And employers have the right to mandate - and many did - even w/o government mandates forcing them too. And the US numbers don't include the shots & profit from overseas sales. So profit numbers from vaccines were going to be huge anyway. Net of it all, those government mandates are icing on the profits cake & not the major driver imo.
Did many big companies mandate vaccines prior to the OSHA mandate?
Protecting the public leads to a public safety threat? Hmm!
The liberal media is at it again. lol
Lol, quick. Pull up some tweet with manipulated and falsified data!! That'll show'em
Its worth repeating: they've been lying to us from the very beginning
And the new Merck drug works essentially like Ivermectin. Both are protease inhibitors. The big difference is that Ivermectin is cheap, whereas the new Merck drug will be patented and very expensive.
Hmm, wonder why Pfizer and Merck are developing "Covid pills" if those Covid vaccines are so freaking amazing.
I'll take "Its a scam" for $500, Alex
That's what Hillary wants you to think.
Merck's drug - molnupiravir - is not a protease inhibitor. It works to directly cause errors in RNA replication.
Pfizer's drug is a protease inhibitor. At least try to keep your conspiracy theories straight.
Trump should come out and strongly endorse the new Merck drug, just to mess with the politically feeble.
I'm open to correction. I knew Pfizer's was, and the CNN doctor said that Merck's worked the same way. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, just trying to learn as much as I can. I bet you're a hit at the dinner table
No teachers unions aren't taking advantage of a pandemic at all. Why would you say that
I'm still amazed that some parents are so thrilled and anxious to jab their young kids.
As far as I know, the OSHA mandate didn't happen till yesterday. So however many "big" companies mandated vaccines before yesterday is the number. You tell me what that number of "big" companies is as I don't know the number, particularly since I don't know your definition of "big".
The Merck test results says it reduces covid hospitalizations by 50%. What's the ivermectin test(s) percentage reduction(s)? Thanks.
I'm not really aware of any official studies, since the mention of ivermectin seems to be taboo in America, but read the posted article and tell me what you think
Florida had a 68 billion dollar surplus at the end of one year into the pandemic. Our schools remained open, we went to church, we went to bars and beaches, we even took time to win an NFL Championship. We lived our life.
Today Florida has the best COVID stats of all 50 states. And most important we do not suffer from Seasonal Depression because we have sunshine and Fun In The Sun . We let the upper 49 worry about COVID.
Did I touch a nerve with my simple question?
Outside of healthcare, the OSHA requirement only impacts companies of a certain size (100 or more employees), so let’s go with the OSHA definition for our use of “big,” as the mandate does not directly impact small companies. Reportedly, 100 million workers will be impacted. So, it appears that the mandate, not to mention those impacted by the federal employee/contractor mandate is a significant number.
The federal employee mandate was a piece of crap, other than for the BOP and the VA, IMO. Show me how the disease was being transmitted through the general federal employment workforce. And, as we know, vaccines don’t stop transmission, so the procedures that have been really successful in the workforce for most federal employees will have to continue, if stopping the spread is the objective. It’s also crap that they don’t give federal employees the right to test weekly, rather than force them to get vaxed. Science did not dictate this authoritarian action.
Thanks. Sounds like it's doing something/a lot but countries are all over the place in number of cases. So other factors could be involved. Would like to see a true study regardless.
To your first question: No. Just trying to understand.
You asked a simple question out of the blue as if I'm supposed to know the answer. But I still don't know from your response here as to how many big companies mandated vaccines prior to the OSHA requirement - your original simple question of me. Your response here, as I can understand it, is about the future & your opinion of it, not about what big companies did prior to the mandate.
I can't show you anything about the disease transmission. What I don't understand is why you think I can or should be able to.
Ok, simple question: whom would you feel safer working next to—an unvaccinated employee who tests weekly, or a fully vaccinated employee who is not required to test?
I'm sincerely interested in what people think about this. Especially, their justification for their choice.
I'm sincerely interested in what people think about this. Especially, their justification for their choice.
Because you said many employers required the vaccine before any government mandate. I assumed you had a source for that statement and wanted to know how significant was the number you thought were “many.”
Never been a member. Healthcare used to be paid for by corporations. Did unions keep that benefit?
I assume you're referring to the unvaxed, who, under the proposed standard, would test weekly. Here's my problem: The vaccinated spread the virus just as frequently and efficiently as the unvaxxed, yet they don't get tested, and could unknowingly be carrying, and spreading the virus. The unvaxed, on the other hand, are being regularly tested, and presumably know whether they are carrying the virus or not, and would stay home if positive.
It seems to me, the only way to "stop the spread" is not thru mandatory vaxxing, but thru mandatory testing, since both groups spread the virus. It's obvious that the vax doesn't prevent catching, carrying nor spreading the virus. Hence, the fallacy in calling this a "pandemic of the unvaccinated." Look at Vermont; look at Israel; look at Ireland--all highly vaxxed, yet runaway caseloads.
I think the best way we'll deal with this is with effective treatment/management after the fact. I'm hoping the new covid pills are the Tamiflu equivalent.
Where’s a link to this I can’t find it but would live to show my super vax friends that still think everyone is dying? Not the surplus but the best Covid stats of all 50 states.
- Status