Are you willing to get the Covid vaccine when offered? (17 Viewers)

Will you get the covid vaccine when offered?

  • Yes

    Votes: 278 73.2%
  • No

    Votes: 106 27.9%

  • Total voters
    380
Y'know, go to Walgreens and get some allergy spray, gummi bears, maybe a new charge cord, and, uhh uhh, oh yeah, a vax shot.

Adding that's it's the right time of year to also buy a new heating pad, and a hand-held "massager."
 
The really interesting thing to me, and disturbing, is how the MSM completely downplays success of Ivermectin, but also is seemingly trying to hush the success of Monoclonal antibodies. You would think with the success stories of it that it would be frontline story with a full out frenzy by Feds to produce it. But I just don't see that happening. Feds trying to use it as a bludgeon against red states.

I have to ask...do you base your opinions on what you yourself watch/read on MSM or what people tell you MSM is doing?

I say this because "Louisiana has relied heavily on the use of monoclonal antibody treatment during coronavirus surges, which can help keep COVID-19 patients out of the hospital. While demand is down in Louisiana, it’s growing among other states, which could strain supply in the future."

614b93de26a68.image.jpg


A quick search of the Times Picayune shows LSU researching this back in August 2020:
https://www.nola.com/news/coronavirus/article_da916176-e17f-11ea-b693-633608c443ec.html

Obviously the TP is just one source, but you can find links to (what you could call?) MSM reporting on the thread you're now reading.

Please consider that whoever is being less than truthful with you regarding what "MSM is or is not saying" is also bending the truth to you on other topics. Look for yourself, then consider the source. 👍
 
I have to ask...do you base your opinions on what you yourself watch/read on MSM or what people tell you MSM is doing?

I say this because "Louisiana has relied heavily on the use of monoclonal antibody treatment during coronavirus surges, which can help keep COVID-19 patients out of the hospital. While demand is down in Louisiana, it’s growing among other states, which could strain supply in the future."

614b93de26a68.image.jpg


A quick search of the Times Picayune shows LSU researching this back in August 2020:
https://www.nola.com/news/coronavirus/article_da916176-e17f-11ea-b693-633608c443ec.html

Obviously the TP is just one source, but you can find links to (what you could call?) MSM reporting on the thread you're now reading.

Please consider that whoever is being less than truthful with you regarding what "MSM is or is not saying" is also bending the truth to you on other topics. Look for yourself, then consider the source. 👍
I think a lot of people who bash "main stream media" do so for one reason:

1. They're trying to convince you to listen to them instead of the media.

Whether it's a politician or blogger or youtubers it's all the same story
 
Free to us. Not free to insurance or government.

And other than being cheaper, it's a preventative, less likely to need serious medical care, and less likely to have complications.

Based on contract pricing with the government, Pfizer costs $19.50 per dose ($39 for a two-dose vaccination) and Moderna costs $15 per shot ($30 total).

A single round/dose of Regeneron monoclonal antibody treatment is reportedly $1,250. Keep in mind that most use of MAB treatment for an infected person is multiple doses (see below).

I think we can all agree that these costs differences are dramatic and based on this, cost does and should bear on the question of whether adopting MAB treatment in lieu of or in tandem with a mass vaccination strategy is sensible.


Sources:



 
Way too much executive power all over, IMO...

From what I can tell, every state (all 50) has a school vaccination law that lists required vaccinations and has an additional provision for the state health agency (an executive branch agency under the governor) to add additional requirements as warranted. I think you can probably do the legislative history on those and find that the flexibility to add new vaccination requirements without the need for new legislation, as long as it meets health agency safeguards, is sensible - particularly in a public health crisis situation.

California's school vaccination law allows additional vaccinations to be added, "taking into consideration the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Family Physicians."

I just looked, all three of those organizations recommend Covid vaccination for school children 12 and over in accordance with current authorizations.

Where's the "too much executive power" part?
 
Last edited:
Way too much executive power all over, IMO...
Why? A lot of schools require all kinds of vaccines before allowing kids to attend. This was coming sooner or later. A year from now, it wouldn't surprise me if this isn't the case for Covid vaccines in schools in most states. Some of these are mandated at the state level.
 
From what I can tell, every state (all 50) has a school vaccination law that lists required vaccinations and has an additional provision for the state health agency (an executive branch agency under the governor) to add additional requirements as warranted. I think you can probably do the legislative history on those and find that the flexibility to add new vaccination requirements without the need for new legislation, as long as it meets health agency safeguards, is sensible - particularly in a public health crisis situation.

California's school vaccination law allows additional vaccinations to be added, "taking into consideration the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Family Physicians.

I just looked, all three of those organizations recommend Covid vaccination for school children 12 and over in accordance with current authorizations.

Where's the "too much executive power" part?
Do each of those recommend requiring vaccinations or just recommending them? If the former (and the process to add is by executive order), then I would agree with your post.
 
Why? A lot of schools require all kinds of vaccines before allowing kids to attend. This was coming sooner or later. A year from now, it wouldn't surprise me if this isn't the case for Covid vaccines in schools in most states. Some of these are mandated at the state level.
I hate to give that much power to any one person. If the legal process is being followed, then I don't really have an argument.
 
I hate to give that much power to any one person. If the legal process is being followed, then I don't really have an argument.
I don't really know the details or California state law, but I assume Gavin's action would be struck down if it's outside the legal process. Regardless, California state legislature will probably deal with it in session at some point.
 
Do each of those recommend requiring vaccinations or just recommending them? If the former (and the process to add is by executive order), then I would agree with your post.

The recommendation is that all children 12 and up get the vaccine (because that's the current FDA authorization). They don't recommend how policymakers carry out recommendations, they make recommendations about usage that can be adopted in the form the policy makers choose. I would imagine that the recommendations for the other vaccinations are similar - they don't recommend requiring it, they only recommend that everyone get it.

I'm not sure what form it takes - the announcement doesn't say that it's an executive order. But even if it is, as long as it was based on the California Dept. of Public Health's consultation with recommendations with those three organizations, it's entirely consistent with the state's school vaccination law. The CADPH is an executive agency under the Governor.

Note: it is only co-extensive with FDA full approval. If that doesn't come until after the new year, this won't be required until next school year.

 
Last edited:
I don't really know the details or California state law, but I assume Gavin's action would be struck down if it's outside the legal process. Regardless, California state legislature will probably deal with it in session at some point.
If that is the way that it occurs, then I would not have a problem.
 
Based on contract pricing with the government, Pfizer costs $19.50 per dose ($39 for a two-dose vaccination) and Moderna costs $15 per shot ($30 total).

A single round/dose of Regeneron monoclonal antibody treatment is reportedly $1,250. Keep in mind that most use of MAB treatment for an infected person is multiple doses (see below).

I think we can all agree that these costs differences are dramatic and based on this, cost does and should bear on the question of whether adopting MAB treatment in lieu of or in tandem with a mass vaccination strategy is sensible.


Sources:



Yes, I agree. I'm just saying people don't care, because they don't pick up the tab. Not until premiums increase.
 
Last edited:

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom