|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Jul 21, 2021 11:38:41 GMT -6
Are you guys being nice to each other lol
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 21, 2021 13:36:39 GMT -6
Are you guys being nice to each other lol Just ducky. |
|
|
|
Post by bsutrack on Jul 21, 2021 14:43:26 GMT -6
His defense of his actions has evolved over the past few months. He used to claim he hadn't funded research at the Wuhan Lab. He seems to have realized that wasn't defensible. Now he claims the research he funded wasn't really gain of function research. As Senator Rand Paul attempted to point out today, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Fauci is probably safe as long as the Democrats control Congress. If however they lose control in the 2022 mid-terms, Fauci might find himself wearing an orange jumpsuit. This is downright silly. That Rand Paul is the quack here is more likely. Who do you trust on the issue of funded research, grant interpretation and evaluating the nature of research, the most cited researcher in his field who has worked for multiple administrations or the guy who won't get vaccinated and isn't a board certified physician any more.
Rand Paul has already recovered from having Covid-19. Those folks who have recovered from Covid-19 have just as good, if not better protection from the Covid-19 virus as those who get vaccinated. In fact, you are more likely to have side effects from taking the Covid-19 vaccine if you have already had and recovered from Covid-19. www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/news/20210430/some-vaccine-side-effects-may-mean-previous-infectionWhy would anyone want to run the risk of side effects if one doesn't have to? That's just common sense you seem to lack. As for who should be believed; the guy most responsible on the planet for the start of Covid-19, who is on record as saying the risk of gain of function research is worth the risk, the guy who funded it in China when even the Obama Administration wouldn't allow it done in the United States, the guy who is obviously trying his best to cover his ass? That's not the guy I, or anyone with an ounce of sense, should find as credible. |
|
|
|
Post by bsutrack on Jul 21, 2021 14:54:51 GMT -6
His defense of his actions has evolved over the past few months. He used to claim he hadn't funded research at the Wuhan Lab. He seems to have realized that wasn't defensible. Now he claims the research he funded wasn't really gain of function research. As Senator Rand Paul attempted to point out today, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Fauci is probably safe as long as the Democrats control Congress. If however they lose control in the 2022 mid-terms, Fauci might find himself wearing an orange jumpsuit. Your own claim is even more silly. Fauci can't be put in jail by the '22 Congress, and if charged criminally the charge would be lying to Congress and require a jury to buy into the argument on the merits beyond a reasonable doubt. That's a silly goose honking.
Well, Rand Paul is in the process of asking the DOJ for an investigation into Fauci: www.foxnews.com/politics/rand-fauci-doj-investigationAlthough I'm not holding my breath for getting any justice from the same agency that shielded Joe Biden and the rest of his family from the information on the Hunter Biden laptop. It will take an investigation by the Congress and that will only happen if the Republicans can regain control in 2022. Even the Washington Post, hardly a conservative bastion, agrees Fauci has lied to Congress: www.foxnews.com/media/wapo-columnist-fauci-nih-funded-wuhan-gain-of-function-researchWashington Post columnist Josh Rogin, who stood out in the media over the past year for his reporting on the possibility the coronavirus pandemic may have leaked from a Chinese lab, said Tuesday that Dr. Anthony Fauci was wrong to deny the National Institutes of Health ever funded "gain of function" research in Wuhan. Rogin said Fauci was playing word games. "Hey guys, [Rand Paul] was right and Fauci was wrong," he tweeted. "The NIH was funding gain of function research in Wuhan but NIH pretended it didn't meet their "gain of function" definition to avoid their own oversight mechanism. SorryNotSorry if that doesn't fit your favorite narrative." |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 21, 2021 16:39:14 GMT -6
No prosecutor will even charge on that as I said above.
It's not just he said, she said. It really isn't a completely clear issue.
Rand Paul should be focusing on how to fund science better and by doing that have a credible demand we improve protocols and can reduce risk. His motive is not clear to me. Politics, yes. But does he really want science to function.
That problem exists in numerous areas of funding for basic science. There will be risks, and cutting out funding will allow other nations to gain incredible advantages.
The danger is one we have ignored, cutting research funding. It's an issue raised in science funding since Galileo. We need more and better science, not questioning scientists and creating fear of it.
You may remember these issues as a theme for Vonnegut in his writings, for example Cat's Cradle.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 23, 2021 14:07:20 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 24, 2021 19:01:46 GMT -6
Your own claim is even more silly. Fauci can't be put in jail by the '22 Congress, and if charged criminally the charge would be lying to Congress and require a jury to buy into the argument on the merits beyond a reasonable doubt. That's a silly goose honking.
Well, Rand Paul is in the process of asking the DOJ for an investigation into Fauci: Honk, honk.
Apart from the argument being complex and the assumptions required making the substance being debatable, I would say a weak argument, you would have to find each assumption to be true beyond a reasonable doubt for a criminal conviction.
And would have to find criminal intent rather than a difference of interpretation.
As for Josh Rogin Here is what he said with all the context included. He hardly condemns Fauci to the gallows here, rather concedes he is technically correct, which makes any criminal action very unlikely. What he does do is make a reasonable point that we need better review process.
I agree and have pointed out that means a big part of the answer is that we need to spend more money on science to make that possible, rather than cutting research funding as the Trump administration did.
All academics in science know quite well as they have seen grant funding very difficult. At this rate US neglect of science education and scientific research is in danger of falling behind compared to foreign efforts. The America first logic in Trump's science policy is fantasy. We need to be part of international research efforts if we want to prevent errors.
IF, and seems unlikely US error was the part of the cause of the pandemic, we cannot stop future errors by refusing to do research and refusing to be part of the international community. We cannot control science in the US on a penny pinching budget and cannot expect to prevent risky research world wide without spending money.
|
|
|
|
Post by bsutrack on Jul 25, 2021 21:41:16 GMT -6
I'm not going through the article point by point. It's not worth the waste of time. I will point out it does admit that Fauci, via EcoHealth, funded gain of function research at the Wuhan Lab "at the time, there was a prohibition against using federal funds for gain-of-function research. That specifically barred “research projects that may be reasonably anticipated” to make influenza and SARS viruses more transmissible and/or more virulent in mammals “via the respiratory route.” One has to wonder if this eventually opens up Fauci to wrongful death lawsuits. One of the article's key defenses of Fauci is the following "In a recent “critical review” of the origins of SARS-CoV-2, an international group of virologists notes that the virus “carries no evidence of genetic markers one might expect from laboratory experiments.” Well there plenty of experts out there who strongly disagree, such as highlighted by the following article: www.republicworld.com/world-news/us-news/never-been-found-naturally-rare-genome-indicates-covid-19-is-man-made-say-us-experts.htmlI suggest the international group of virologists supporting Fauci are ones beholding to him for funding. You do realize Fauci controls the funding for a very large percentage of the world's scientific funding? Piss off Fauci and good luck finding funding for your research. I got a chuckle out of article's attack on what they labeled "Assumption 2: Scientists funded by NIAID increased the virulence or transmissibility of the coronaviruses they sampled". Like that didn't happen. Well there are nearly 200 million reported cases and 4 million Covid-19 deaths worldwide that strongly support the contrary. As they say, the proof is in the pudding. Rand Paul isn't the only one piling-on to Fauci. Add Rep. Madison Cawthorn of NC. "U.S. Code sections 1621 and 1001 of Title 18 are the two relevant legal standards at play here," Cawthorn said. "Section 1621 states that anyone who ‘willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true’ is guilty of perjury and shall be fined or imprisoned up to five years, or both. Section 1001 stipulates that ‘whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the government of the United States, knowingly and willfully" falsifies or conceals information, including before a congressional committee's inquiry, may also be fined or imprisoned up to five years.’’" Like a snowball rolling downhill, others will also pile-on too. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 26, 2021 9:11:40 GMT -6
The blame game is a distraction from solving the problem we have. Vaccines are essential. Masking and other mitigation are essential in outbreaks. Fauci and the professionals are right on that.(although I suspect we'll see bsutrack tomes on anti-vax and anti-mask to continue).
Here's a new twist on private sector forces leading more people to necessarily be vaccinated.
Health insurers are seeing extremely high costs for Covid care, and see a really cheap way to cut those costs. Just as we see companies with smoking bans or higher premiums for smokers, anybody wanting health insurance or wanting to offer an employment benefit may face a resulting need to require or encourage vaccination as a condition, and, the smoking bans are parallel to requiring other mitigation policies in the event of vaccine unavailability or other vaccine failure. Slower, but no government action required. Maybe too slow is the concern with variants being spawned which is a good reason for government action short term.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Jul 26, 2021 9:33:09 GMT -6
The blame game is a distraction from solving the problem we have. Vaccines are essential. Masking and other mitigation are essential in outbreaks. Fauci and the professionals are right on that.(although I suspect we'll see bsutrack tomes on anti-vax and anti-mask to continue).
Here's a new twist on private sector forces leading more people to necessarily be vaccinated.
Health insurers are seeing extremely high costs for Covid care, and see a really cheap way to cut those costs. Just as we see companies with smoking bans or higher premiums for smokers, anybody wanting health insurance or wanting to offer an employment benefit may face a resulting need to require or encourage vaccination as a condition, and, the smoking bans are parallel to requiring other mitigation policies in the event of vaccine unavailability or other vaccine failure. Slower, but no government action required. Maybe too slow is the concern with variants being spawned which is a good reason for government action short term.
How many people, do you think, are telling their employers they're vaccinated without actually getting the shot? BSU "strongly encourages" vaccinations among employees, and is giving incentives, but all you have to do is say you got the shot. There's no proof required. And there's a thriving black market for vaccination cards. So who are we kidding? |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 26, 2021 10:08:33 GMT -6
Here's a new twist on private sector forces leading more people to necessarily be vaccinated.
Health insurers are seeing extremely high costs for Covid care...
How many people, do you think, are telling their employers they're vaccinated without actually getting the shot? BSU "strongly encourages" vaccinations among employees, and is giving incentives, but all you have to do is say you got the shot. There's no proof required. And there's a thriving black market for vaccination cards. That's a case for better verification procedures. And if businesses get behind that, I can't see the politicians resisting this kind of vaccine passport even if controversial. This also saves money for publicly funded medical care. Cutting health care costs is good medicine there too.
Requiring a no smoking statement has had impact even though people have a lot of reason to lie on that smoking thing, it's a strong addiction. At the least an employer mandate or insurance premium benefit would remove a lot of excuses people have. Employers could easily help them keep that pledge, sponsor vaccination on company time. Why go to the trouble of getting a fake vaccine ID when the shot is free, available?
Easy now to just ignore safety, saying "it won't happen to me," there is a good chance not that many people have deeply held beliefs on the matter. Make it easy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Jul 26, 2021 10:24:03 GMT -6
How many people, do you think, are telling their employers they're vaccinated without actually getting the shot? BSU "strongly encourages" vaccinations among employees, and is giving incentives, but all you have to do is say you got the shot. There's no proof required. And there's a thriving black market for vaccination cards. That's a case for better verification procedures. And if businesses get behind that, I can't see the politicians resisting this kind of vaccine passport even if controversial. This also saves money for publicly funded medical care. Cutting health care costs is good medicine there too.
Requiring a no smoking statement has had impact even though people have a lot of reason to lie on that smoking thing, it's a strong addiction. At the least an employer mandate or insurance premium benefit would remove a lot of excuses people have. Employers could easily help them keep that pledge, sponsor vaccination on company time. Why go to the trouble of getting a fake vaccine ID when the shot is free, available?
Easy now to just ignore safety, saying "it won't happen to me," there is a good chance not that many people have deeply held beliefs on the matter. Make it easy.
Really? When BSU hired you, did you have to show verification that you are immunized for polio? Measles? Mumps? Rubella? You're advocating that a state agency should be able to force me to share my medical information with them. Is there ANYTHING you think an individual should be able to keep private? |
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Jul 26, 2021 10:55:37 GMT -6
This is a little BSU mask related news that might mean something.. Ball State Football has a youth camp Wed.. All parents have to be masked and maintain social distance. This seems to go against every other thing Ive heard from BSU
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 26, 2021 13:44:05 GMT -6
That's a case for better verification procedures. And if businesses get behind that, I can't see the politicians resisting this kind of vaccine passport even if controversial. This also saves money for publicly funded medical care. Cutting health care costs is good medicine there too.
Really? When BSU hired you, did you have to show verification that you are immunized for polio? Measles? Mumps? Rubella? No. But if these diseases were really expensive to treat and you created a higher risk to others in the work force or for students, it would be quite reasonable. It's not like I don't submit detailed health care information all the time to BSU. We have to submit records of health care for insurance reimbursement from the BSU self insurance fund administered by Anthem. Before we can get certain medical coverage, we submit records of other treatments required by the fund administrator. If no disclosure of all records about a procedure, no reimbursement. Check what you sign if you are admitted to the hospital or even file for a prescription reimbursement.
If you are willing to pay more for insurance coverage, you are free to smoke and not tell anyone. If you lie you do risk losing insurance coverage. Just as you lose life insurance coverage if you lie on the application.
You're advocating that a state agency should be able to force me to share my medical information with them. Is there ANYTHING you think an individual should be able to keep private? Whether the status as a state employee is different or not for some things, some of your employment benefits are strictly private choice for you. Look at it from the employers point of view as they subsidize your health insurance. Why should they be required to pay the same for illnesses that you refuse to prevent?
Look at another way. Why should you have to pay higher premiums to pay for my decision to take greater risks? Maybe sometimes? Somebody in ICU on a ventilator costs a lot of money. Is your privacy worth that cost? If so decline the insurance coverage.
Regarding the state action question, your due process rights to benefits extended by the state agency as employer are just that. You have rights to fair treatment if benefits are taken away, including prior notice of terms, perhaps a hearing when denied benefits, or in some cases something less than that.
There is very little substantive due process right to privacy. We could debate the right to health insurance at low cost. That's what you are claiming. The state can create this benefit, I think arguably they should, for example Medicaid, but can put many reasonable conditions on it.
This case would make it more your private decision to accept a benefit subject to requirements to voluntarily disclose health information.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Jul 27, 2021 6:24:19 GMT -6
So much for "my body, my choice."
You can sign away all rights to privacy so you can save a buck or two on your insurance, but don't expect everyone to be so pliable.
|
|
