I like that republicans started noticing their voters dropping dead and kinda tried to change and tell people to get vaccinated then got push back and just jumped back on the stupid bus.
Funny you should say that....
www.cnn.com
Careful what you wish for republicans. It can come back to bite you.Funny you should say that....
California governor says he will use legal tactics of Texas abortion ban to implement gun control | CNN
California Gov. Gavin Newsom expressed his "outrage" Saturday at a Supreme Court decision to allow the Texas six-week abortion ban to remain in effect and said he would use similar legal tactics to tackle gun control in his state.
The only 2 times I remember conservatives in America willing to change guns laws was the the coal mining strikes in the 20/30s and when the Black Panthers were still around
They say that, but more gun control tends to be passed by republican presidents then democratic ones. Mainly cause with a republican they have to at least look like they are trying to do something and if its a republican president then their legislators don't look as good by just stonewalling everything they try and do.
Something similar happened with Australian gun laws. They were brought in by conservatives. If they were done by pepgressives, they would have been panned.
Of course you can't sue state officials over it, that's by *design*. Normally, the lawsuits to fight these things are against whatever official is responsible for enforcing it, but state officials are explicitly forbidden from starting suits over this law specifically so they are the wrong people to sue.
Honestly, doing something like this or something even more overtly unconstitutional using the same enforcement mechanism is going to be the way to go if SCOTUS ends up upholding this abortion law. Though I can't imagine SCOTUS letting it stand - it's literally a law designed to neuter the power of the judiciary in a way that can and will be used in the future if they don't kill it.
There is a logic to this.
Not quite. While I'm not sure whether gun control was a conservative issue or not before Port Arthur, once Australia got the (then) greatest number of kills in a single mass shooting, more or less the entire country was pro-gun control, and while the Liberal Party was in charge of the Federal government, you had Labor in charge of various states and they were able to work together on that one because it wasn't a divisive issue. Gun restrictions are still determined by states, they just are broadly similar, and generally well thought out (notable exception the issue with lever action shotguns).
Did you miss the EVERYONE part of that statement? Look at the data (aka SCIENCE) that's out there. Bangladesh study shows masks did nothing for those under 50. Most other developed nations aren't masking kids, even the WHO says not to mask kids. There's no reason to vaccinate those that already had covid or healthy kids (per German data). 10s of thousands died because we didn't prioritize those that didn't have covid when rolling out vaccines so many at-risk completely non-immune people got vaccinated later while those that had covid previously took the limited shots during the vaccine rollout. Not spacing the shots longer apart also caused deaths as it's better to give all one dose than getting half fully vaccinated (and half completely unvaccinated) in the same amount of time.
I don't know and couldn't care less who Jerry Falwell is. I previously stated I go by deontology for my morals, it has nothing to do with this Jerry guy. AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES I HAVE TO RESTATE THIS, I REPLIED TO A POST SAYING BASICALLY "WHY IS THIS EVEN A DEBATE BECAUSE IT SOME RELIGIOUS BELIEF STUFF?" That is not what is at all, this isn't same debate about not eating meat on Fridays or some shit. I said PROBABLY most people would say killing a fetus is bad if you just asked them generally, and I still could be right because you have like 5% undecided which can swing the "vote" along with only a 1% difference in the poll and I'm sure there's some error % in the poll like all polls. There's a reason why there's always a gasp in the audience when a pregnant woman gets killed in a movie. LASTLY, I SAID I'M NOT FOR A LAW BANNING ABORTIONS BECAUSE SOME ARE INDEED MORAL AND IT WOULD BE LOGISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO ONLY HAVE MORAL ABORTIONS ANYWAY SO IT'S KINDA POINTLESS.
That's how the term lockdowns is used in the US.
Wealth is health in the US, and we just had the greatest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich over covid restrictions. There wasn't streets filled with water from say a hurricane preventing people from getting to work, it was the government alone preventing people from going to work. I'd rather go to work and have health insurance so if I got sick, I wouldn't lose my life savings. Not going to work isn't protecting me from catching covid (it lowers the chance, yes), I'd like to be able to go to the hospital if I had to whether it was from covid or a multitude of other things. Lockdowns saved lives in the very short-term, but not even close to saving life in the long-term and poor people got even poorer, that's not good for them or their kids at all.
I specifically said I wanted data per state BEFORE vaccinations were available and that was the only source I found. I wanted data BEFORE vaccinations because that will show what policies, if any, actually worked. We all know vaccinations are the biggest contributing factor to death rates and that's not a policy difference between democrats and republicans. And you're still looking at the wrong data because that data you posted is adjusted for age because guess what? A state that has more elderly is going to have more deaths if both states had the same exact amount of spread (like a quarter of the population got it). When you look at that data, Florida is doing better than average. The fact that Florida was average to slightly above average is deaths per 100k in 2020 WITHOUT adjusting for age shows how well the state did and all with no restrictions and schools open and all that. So if the most open state can pull those type of numbers, how many lives have those covid restrictions actually saved? AGAIN, life lost is just not only in the short-term but long-term, which you keep ignoring.
You can look at 2020 before vaccinations to get an idea of what we'd be looking at. You can look at Florida that did better than average and had no restrictions basically all of 2020 and no overwhelmed medical systems. I didn't claim that lockdowns didn't stop deaths from covid, my claim is in the long-term, lockdowns produced far more harm than benefit. Also, lockdowns are a very crude way of protecting people because most people that got to stay home because of lockdowns weren't part of the highly at-risk population, we protected the healthy and exposed the vulnerable more often than not. Where is your "proof" or "science" that says lockdowns produced more benefits? Every single cost-benefit analysis of lockdowns says they've cost more lives. Surely you can produce such a document.Oh Christ but you understand so little.
Lockdowns don't - in the long term - stop people dying of disease: it's more that they kick the can down the road. The purpose of a lockdown is to break the rapid transmission of a disease when the number of people ill starts becoming so high that it threatens to overwhelm the capacity of health services. If the health services become overwhelmed, deaths maginify at a very alarming rate, not only from the disease itself but also a load of other health problems that can no longer be treated either. Ideally of course the can may be able to be kicked down the road long enough so that a therapy can be developed. Bear in mind that over 1000 Americans a day are dying of covid, even though most of the adult population is vaccinated. What would we be looking at if they were not? What does this suggest to us about how bad it could have been without any alternative control before the vaccine?
Quite likely there were ineffective lockdowns, because some authorities shut everything down at an inappropriate time. Lockdowns also exist within a wider body of public health measures, and thus will have at best a severely muted effect where the other measures are nonexistant or poor. There's also plentiful evidence that in many states, application of lockdown was inconsistent or undermined (even by something as simple as civil disobedience).
When I think about shitty and stupid public health comms, you are a prime example of what happens with such a failure. In the absence of a clear and reliable message, people latch onto whatever bullshit passes their way, and delude themselves they're enlightened geniuses who "follow the science", where everyone else are just dumb sheeple.
Dangerous transmissions: anti-vax radio shows reach millions in US while stars die of Covid
Media watchdogs suggest that some basic level of responsibility to the public should be required to keep a broadcast licensewww.theguardian.com
Yet you can't produce a document saying lockdowns actually saved more lives...
Doesn't mean you aren't doing his dirty work all the same.
Yeah, incorrectly.
Sounds like a great argument for universal healthcare and a UBI along with all the childcare stuff that progressives are making some noise about.
You say a lot of things, but if that's your excuse to completely blow off the data you were given in favor of more blah-blah-blah, then I can't be fucked to read any of it.
Do you know why you are talking about cost-benefit analyses?
