12 Mississippi children in ICU, 10 on ventilators

[probinson]

Another great article about vaccination of children (emphasis added);

The CDC has projected a binary assuredness about the risk-reward calculus for young people, and in particular young males, yet evidence suggests much of the data is ambiguous at best, and contradictory at worst, to the CDC’s public messaging. By not acknowledging nuance and uncertainties, the CDC makes it harder, not easier, for Americans to make informed choices. And it makes it harder, not easier, for Americans to trust the authorities.

The CDC Owes Parents Better Messaging on the Vaccine for Kids
​

 

[98cwitr]

The same way Christians trust God by simply jumping out of windows of tall buildings rather than taking elevators?

Matthew 4

5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6 “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:

“‘He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’c]">[c]”

7 Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’d]">[d]”

 

[98cwitr]

What actions by the government would have made you, @98cwitr more likely to get vaccinated?

I didn’t say they “wanted COVID to kill more people.” I said they are “acting like they want COVID to kill more people.” I’m not saying they want more people to die, I’m just saying that if they wanted more people to die, their actions would be very similar to what they are currently doing. If that upsets you, maybe I’m getting close to a nerve. Or maybe you simply misunderstood what I’m saying and it doesn’t bother you. I’m leaning toward the latter.

Full FDA approval and testing before the first shot was injected into a citizen. That would require full human trials and working out these adverse effects we're seeing (blood clots, heart swelling, etc). Roll these out the same way we've done vaccines in the past. Most importantly, the entire risk framing would have to had never been, as the response to covid (shutdowns, mask mandates, etc) was grossly overwhelming compared to what the data was showing; that covid had a 90% mortality rate for those over 65, but far less for those under 65.Bottomline, I've got big red question marks regarding the long-term effects of spike proteins. We shall see what happens.

It's not what the government should have done, but what they should have NOT done. The actions of governors sending sick patients into nursing homes was really telling. That was and IS a huge red flag. I don't think Cuomo and Whittmer were so incompetent that they truly believed that was an okay idea.

Framing how they're "acting" implies intent and motive. I wanted to counter that position.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

Full FDA approval and testing before the first shot was injected into a citizen. That would require full human trials and working out these adverse effects we're seeing (blood clots, heart swelling, etc). Roll these out the same way we've done vaccines in the past. Most importantly, the entire risk framing would have to had never been, as the response to covid (shutdowns, mask mandates, etc) was grossly overwhelming compared to what the data was showing; that covid had a 90% mortality rate for those over 65, but far less for those under 65.Bottomline, I've got big red question marks regarding the long-term effects of spike proteins. We shall see what happens.

The CDC has a handy guide on how the vaccine works. Understanding mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines

These vaccines (at least the US approved ones) went through the same standards all vaccines needed to. COVID-19 moved significantly quicker for several reasons.

One was they were already working on coronavirus vaccines so they already had a plan on what needed to get done. Just like the flu vaccine having a new one come out every year. They know what they need to do, just fine tune it for that year’s most likely flu virus.
Two, the money was there, Trump pouring money into it made companies jump at doing this, guaranteed buys whether it worked or not meant the companies weren’t going to end up pouring money into a product they couldn’t sell.
Three, the companies and government went through the bureaucratic stuff while the trials were going on. Usually things are done one at a time, this they moved along by doing things simultaneously that could be done.
Four, they ran multiple studies simultaneously. They didn’t wait for one to finish before starting the next one on situations like changing the dosage or timing of the dosage. They got the next one moving right away.
Five, they could do this because they had a plethora of test subjects. Usually they have a hard time getting enough subjects for these trials. They had to turn people down for these. My wife and I both signed up and got turned down.

It's not what the government should have done, but what they should have NOT done. The actions of governors sending sick patients into nursing homes was really telling. That was and IS a huge red flag. I don't think Cuomo and Whittmer were so incompetent that they truly believed that was an okay idea.

I agree placing sick patients in nursing homes wasn’t a good idea and retroactively was possibly the worst decision to make in that situation.

Framing how they're "acting" implies intent and motive. I wanted to counter that position.

Maybe there is intent and motive. Maybe there isn’t. I’m convinced some people are sick of waiting for the end of the world and are trying to push it along. Actions speak louder than words. I can say I’m not a Green Bay Packers fan all I want, but if I go to Lambeau Field on Sundays in fall while wearing a green jersey and yelling “Go Pack Go” people aren’t going to believe when I say I’m not a Packers fan. People can say they don’t want people to get sick but when they refuse to take actions to prevent them from getting sick, I don’t believe what they say.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Wow. That’s all I can say.

I'm not surprised. It's hard (well, impossible) to claim the "godly government only" stipulation you're claiming when it's nowhere to be found in Roman 13:

1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

 

[Hammster]

"No, I won't give any example" would have been sufficient and more direct.

I doubt it would change the mind of someone who thinks abortion is okay if the government says it is. So there’s no point in continuing.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

I doubt it would change the mind of someone who thinks abortion is okay if the government says it is. So there’s no point in continuing.

When did I ever say "abortion is OK if the government says it is"??? You must be talking about someone else because I never said that.

Even so, that doesn't make your claim of "only godly governments are ministers" any more Biblical. It's just not a Biblical claim and in fact does not jibe with Romans 13.

 

[Hammster]

When did I ever say "abortion is OK if the government says it is"??? You must be talking about someone else because I never said that.

Even so, that doesn't make your claim of "only godly governments are ministers" any more Biblical. It's just not a Biblical claim and in fact does not jibe with Romans 13.

Based on your understanding of Romans 13, you have to say that abortion is godly if the government says it’s okay.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Based on your understanding of Romans 13, you have to say that abortion is godly if the government says it’s okay.

No. That's not what Romans 13 says. Please show me where in Romans 13 it says that one must agree with everything a government does.

You have repeatedly said that Romans 13 is pertinent only to a "godly" government, yet you have yet to be able to explain what that means or show even one example. I can only conclude that you have no explanation other than one that is completely subjective...and certainly no Biblical explanation.

The idea of obeying or disobeying governmental authority based on one's own personal feelings about the government's laws is a political, right-wing (libertarian) position, but it is not Biblical at all.

 

[Hammster]

No. That's not what Romans 13 says. Please show me where in Romans 13 it says that one must agree with everything a government does.

You have repeatedly said that Romans 13 is pertinent only to a "godly" government, yet you have yet to be able to explain what that means or show even one example. I can only conclude that you have no explanation other than one that is completely subjective...and certainly no Biblical explanation.

The idea of obeying or disobeying governmental authority based on one's own personal feelings about the government's laws is a political, right-wing (libertarian) position, but it is not Biblical at all.

If the government is for something that God is against, it’s ungodly and shouldn’t be followed at those points.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

If the government is for something that God is against, it’s ungodly and shouldn’t be followed at those points.

So what government in the history of the world is Romans 13 applicable to? Name one "godly" government. Otherwise, Romans 13 is meaningless as it doesn't apply to any government since no government is "godly".

But at least you admit that the government of the USA is not godly, which is very true. Still, God says the government is His minister of His justice.

 

[Tanj]

I would agree that what happens on Twitter should be of no consequence to the real world. But that has not been the case with the pandemic. Twitter celebrity doctors have been opining, mostly incorrectly, all throughout the pandemic. Which would be all fine and dandy if that's where it stopped. But it isn't. Those same Twitter celebrities have had a driving voice in pandemic policy. They've been employed as "fact-checkers" to set people straight. Check out this article that illustrates just how much influence Twitter celebrities have;

https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/91526

I cannot access that page without registering...which I am not going to do. I did see something abiout facebook under the registration thingy, so if your argument is that the facebook sewer is using nuggets from the twitter sewer, then my original argument stands.

 

[Hammster]

So what government in the history of the world is Romans 13 applicable to? Name one "godly" government. Otherwise, Romans 13 is meaningless as it doesn't apply to any government since no government is "godly".

But at least you admit that the government of the USA is not godly, which is very true. Still, God says the government is His minister of His justice.

I never said that any government was godly.

 

[KCfromNC]

This is a particularly interesting hypothesis, since the CDC's own systematic review of 10 RCTs of masking to reduce influenza found that they were not significant in reducing the spread;

Given the results from 2020, guess they were wrong.

It's important to note that the study you cited does not have the same quality evidence as the systematic review the CDC did.

What other "systematic review" of 2020 flu case numbers would you prefer?

In the evidence pyramid, the study you cited sits at the very bottom, while the systematic review of the RCTs the CDC did sits very near the top in terms of quality of evidence

Given the research you're quoting happened before we tried a live trial of widespread mask use, this seems to be a weird claim.

So the correct thing to do in an instance like this isn't to assume that one observational study trumps a systematic review of 75 years worth of RCTs on masking. The correct thing to do would be to do more RCTs and do a systematic review of those to see if the observational study has any merit, given that there is established, high-quality evidence that comes to a very different conclusion.

I'll anxiously await your results. In the mean time, though, are we just supposed to ignore the massive reduction in flu numbers when mask wearing was prevalent?

Because all of the low-quality evidence that came from observational studies throughout the pandemic intentionally did not include time periods were cases were increasing.

The study in question was of flu infections, not sure why you're talking about covid numbers.

That's what is interesting about looking at flu cases. Unlike covid, we have a good baseline for what a normal year looks like. And, lo and behold, the measures put in place to help slow the spread of covid did an incredibly good job at reducing the flu numbers by an order of magnitude from that baseline.

Looking at covid case counts is a red herring - we don't know what would have happened if people weren't wearing masks during that time. Posting a pretty multi-colored pyramid graphic doesn't change that fact.

 

[KCfromNC]

Matthew 4

5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6 “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:

“‘He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’c]">[c]”

7 Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’d]">[d]”

Seems to be a pretty good argument for getting vaccinated rather than testing God's ability to protect oneself.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

I never said that any government was godly.

Right, and you provided your own definition for what a "godly" government is.

You also never said what government Romans 13 is talking about except "godly" governments, which you are now saying that you never said any government was. So then what is Romans 13 talking about? Which government is it that is a minister to us for His good??? You never said, still. Or is your point that Romans 13 is not accurate or practical?

 

[d taylor]

​

Jen Psaki Says Vaccines Can Still Kill You Even If You Are Under The Age of 27

The short video above came from this video below at around 48:20

 

[Hammster]

Right, and you provided your own definition for what a "godly" government is.

You also never said what government Romans 13 is talking about except "godly" governments, which you are now saying that you never said any government was. So then what is Romans 13 talking about? Which government is it that is a minister to us for His good??? You never said, still. Or is your point that Romans 13 is not accurate or practical?

I’ve explained it. I don’t see the need to repeat it.

 

[d taylor]

And yet the governmental authorities are God's minister to all people for good, and for a Christian to rebel is to receive damnation unto himself.

Governments and politicians sure speak the language of satan a lot.

You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

I’ve explained it. I don’t see the need to repeat it.

No, you haven't. If you have, you don't have to repeat it, point me to it. But you haven't.