|
Which horse film is your favorite? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Black Beauty |
|
2 | 1.06% |
| A Talking Pony!?! |
|
4 | 2.13% |
| Mr. Hands 2x Apple Flavor |
|
117 | 62.23% |
| War Horse |
|
11 | 5.85% |
| Mr. Hands |
|
54 | 28.72% |
| Total: | 188 votes | ||
|
HonorableTB posted:Update: my friend that I convinced to get vaccinated followed through. She just sent me this Legit congrats on your efforts to protect your friend. This is already a great thread due to this success story.
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 22:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 20:32 |
|
|
poll plane variant posted:What the gently caress is mild hospitalization, what on Earth are you talking about A hospitalization for mild symptoms. Like a mild coma,.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 22:43
|
|
|
Only the FDA has the authority to approve the booster. The CDC and White House can put political pressure or guidance involving the distribution but approval for use is solely on the FDA. This was one of the points of contention from the two FDA officials resigning is that the FDA has been allowing these other regulatory agencies overstep into the Vaccine’s review.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 22:44
|
|
|
Hy_C posted:Only the FDA has the authority to approve the booster. The CDC and White House can put political pressure or guidance involving the distribution but approval for use is solely on the FDA. What is legitimately stopping a state like California or Washington from saying "FDA, we see you, we hear you, and we are going ahead with our own approval of vaccine boosters for our population." ? If Texas, Florida, etc. can decide to ban mask mandates, ban vaccine mandates or flagrantly violate and ignore federal rules why can't a blue state decide it's done the research and boosters are on the menu. What are the feds going to do, send in the DHS to kick down vaccine clinic doors? They couldn't even police state's marijuana sales (which are still federally illegal!).
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 22:54
|
|
|
mod sassinator posted:What is legitimately stopping a state like California or Washington from saying "FDA, we see you, we hear you, and we are going ahead with our own approval of vaccine boosters for our population." ? If Texas, Florida, etc. can decide to ban mask mandates, ban vaccine mandates or flagrantly violate and ignore federal rules why can't a blue state decide it's done the research and boosters are on the menu. What are the feds going to do, send in the DHS to kick down vaccine clinic doors? They couldn't even police state's marijuana sales (which are still federally illegal!). States do not even have a mechanism for medication approval. States cannot nullify federal authority. We fought a war over this. Marijuana enforcement is an entirely different form of authority tied to the 10th amendment's police power. State ability to ignore other federal authorities is tied to rejecting associated federal programs and funding.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 23:19
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:States do not even have a mechanism for medication approval. States cannot nullify federal authority. We fought a war over this. Marijuana enforcement is an entirely different form of authority tied to the 10th amendment's police power. State ability to ignore other federal authorities is tied to rejecting associated federal programs and funding. So what's stopping Washington from setting up the Washington State Food and Drug Administration and doing it anyway? Just because there isn't a mechanism right now doesn't mean that can't change and there's no constitutional authority over drug approval given to the federal government. We're a net financial contributor to the nation, we already give more than we take in federal aid and programs. That's kind of an empty threat
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 23:22
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:So what's stopping Washington from setting up the Washington State Food and Drug Administration and doing it anyway? Just because there isn't a mechanism right now doesn't mean that can't change and there's no constitutional authority over drug approval given to the federal government. The federal government has authority over the subject matter on a number of levels, at a minimum on the interstate nature of everything from the drug supply chain to the disease itself. Generally, federal authority and regulation in these activities "precludes" and prevents contradictory state activity. This is referred to as "field occupation"; the feds are regulating this, the states don't get to overrule the feds. Washington could theoretically, maybe, depending on the other authorities involved, set up regulations over entirely intrastate activity by people who do not leave the state or effect people who leave the state, being treated by people who do not compete with people who leave the state, using treatments produced entirely within the state. California did attempt this with Prop 65 and has attempted to do it with some food regulations, to very little success, because hey presto, people sue them in federal court. Their limited success has been largely dependent on the size of their market meaning that companies just comply and apply specific standards elsewhere, and because those standards do not conflict with federal regulations.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 23:28
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:So what's stopping Washington from setting up the Washington State Food and Drug Administration and doing it anyway? Just because there isn't a mechanism right now doesn't mean that can't change and there's no constitutional authority over drug approval given to the federal government. We're a net financial contributor to the nation, we already give more than we take in federal aid and programs. That's kind of an empty threat I mean besides the clusterfuck that would be having both a national and state level drug approval agency, unless your goal is that the Washington State FDA wouldn't be independent and was directly controlled by the Governor, given how overwhelming the vote was against boosters for healthy under 65s there's a likely chance whatever expert panel you convene would also just vote in a similar manner. And are you going to disband the agency after they approve your booster or are you really going to invest the resources to forever investigate and approve every single drug and medical device at the state level from now on?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 23:29
|
|
|
I don't see how this is any different from marijuana. Washington state expanded its liquor board to control and setup all the rules for legal weed sales in the state. It is entirely illegal at the federal level to sell, consume, etc. marijuana yet Washington state has been doing it for almost 10 years now. Funding hasn't been cut, people haven't sued the state into oblivion. Washington has put experts in place to review and approve goods which are consumed by people for their pharmacological effects. A vaccine is not any different and Washington's state department of health could be expanded to approve the drug use--for all other drugs they could choose to defer to the FDA's testing and authorization, this isn't an either/or thing where they have to take on some ridiculous burden for every drug. They just say, "Bing, bong we approve booster, we purchased it from Pfizer in a completely private transaction between a private business and a state, the feds have no business here. Washingtonians, we are here for your health and will plug the hole the federal government is leaving that puts you at severe risk right now." I fail to see how this is any different from people crying about "What you can't just print money and give it to people!??" with lockdown last year, and then *brrrrr* goes the money printer... except this time it's much needed life-saving boosters.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 23:39
|
|
|
mod sassinator posted:I don't see how this is any different from marijuana. Washington state expanded its liquor board to control and setup all the rules for legal weed sales in the state. It is entirely illegal at the federal level to sell, consume, etc. marijuana yet Washington state has been doing it for almost 10 years now. Funding hasn't been cut, people haven't sued the state into oblivion. Washington has put experts in place to review and approve goods which are consumed by people for their pharmacological effects. Discendo Vox posted:Marijuana enforcement is an entirely different form of authority tied to the 10th amendment's police power. You need to step back and evaluate why you're making nullification arguments.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 23:42
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The federal government has authority over the subject matter on a number of levels, at a minimum on the interstate nature of everything from the drug supply chain to the disease itself. I would love to see what federal law says a disease is something only the federal government can respond to or manage. I am genuinely curious what this would be. Like does it lay out some list of pathogens that the federal government manages? Is it like nuclear waste or something? This is just really baffling and curious.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 23:43
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You need to step back and evaluate why you're making nullification arguments. Florida and Texas are doing it to put people in MORE HARM. Why can't a state do it to put people in LESS HARM?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 23:43
|
|
|
Just because you have decided you know better than the FDA doesn't mean that the individual states get to nullify federal law. The relevant authorities have already been explained to you multiple times.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 23:48
|
|
|
Where did I say I know better? I am saying what is stopping a state from saying it knows better and wants to save its citizens itself? This seems like a clear cut thing a state could do itself if the federal government continues to fail to keep its citizens safe. Texas and Florida are saying they know better than the CDC and will not require or allow vaccine mandates for certain things. This is no different at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 23:53
|
|
|
mod sassinator posted:Where did I say I know better? State attempts to deny or block vaccine mandates will be subject to court proceedings that, to the degree that they hinge on nullifying federal authority, will be subject to the same analysis I just described.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 23:55
|
|
|
Now that vaccines have full approval, my understanding is that there aren't any legal barriers to states or even the CDC recommending off-label booster use or doctors/pharmacists giving them. They're just extremely unlikely to do so, and ultimately the decision would still come down to doctors and pharmacists. E: It would be illegal for pharmaceutical companies to advertise off-label boosters, but they certainly don't need to directly do that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 00:00
|
|
|
Yeah this is really silly all the theatrics of the FDA advisory meeting, etc. when Pfizer is fully authorized. Washington should just say "we are boosting anyone, come fly out and visit--get a boost, visit the start parks!". Vaccine tourism would juice their economy a lot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 00:02
|
|
|
mod sassinator posted:Where did I say I know better? and Texas and Florida are going to get dragged to court for not complying with vaccine mandates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_crisis This conversation feels like it's drawn from Trump's DO SOMETHING tweet genre. You are of course entitled to be upset that federal and state government bodies are not doing what you think is right, but there is literally not a constitutional mechanism for what you're proposing. Nullification was decided two hundred years ago and Something Awful forums posters aren't going to stumble on One Weird Trick for states to nullify federal law in 2021.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 00:03
|
|
|
Reminder that if Washington-FDA can prescribe 3rd shots then Florida-FDA can prescribe ivermectin.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 00:39
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Reminder that if Washington-FDA can prescribe 3rd shots then Florida-FDA can prescribe ivermectin. I think the fact that the Pfizer vaccine is FDA approved for off label use means boosters going to be given out regardless of this boosters game the FDA advisory board wants to play. It just means that the wealthy will receive a boosters while the poor won’t. Honestly it’s pretty disgusting what the FDA advisory board is doing and they should be called out for it. https://twitter.com/DLeonhardt/status/1437418227794120708?s=20 virtualboyCOLOR fucked around with this message at 02:30 on Sep 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 00:58
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:and Texas and Florida are going to get dragged to court for not complying with vaccine mandates Those links don't go to any information about lawsuits against Texas or Florida. Could you link to that? Could you also link to information about how the feds are responding to Montana's law forbidding employer vaccine mandates? Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 01:16
|
|
|
We have described the relevant legal authorities at length. The principles are not different or special in the case of vaccination. Texas, Montana and Florida do not have the ability to nullify federal laws or regulations. It is unlikely that legal proceedings have begun in any of these states because the OSHA rule hasn't been even promulgated yet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 01:58
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:We have described the relevant legal authorities at length. The principles are not different or special in the case of vaccination. Texas, Montana and Florida do not have the ability to nullify federal laws or regulations. It is unlikely that legal proceedings have begun in any of these states because the OSHA rule hasn't been even promulgated yet. You have? Can you quote those posts? I must have missed them. I an very interested to learn more about how these states are suffering consequences for thier actions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 02:03
|
|
|
I imagine states will be given some time to implement these policies before they are judged to be out of compliance or not. If these red states in fact are not bluffing, then you will probably see lawsuits. And how much do you want to bet the red states want it to go before this particular Supreme Court? They can't sue them for precrimes though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 02:17
|
|
|
I do not believe that the security forces are reliable enough to enforce Biden admin policy on red-state whites, but they would absolutely do so, on their own initiative, against 'the libs'.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 02:26
|
|
|
I'm probably as cynical as most when it comes to the government's ability to actually do what's needed for this pandemic, but people still want to discuss the policy and details thereof without just screaming that everything sucks and it's all gonna burn. If you just want to get angry at your twitter feed go do that somewhere else. If you actually want to debate and discuss then that's fine. Thank you for participating in the thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 02:37
|
|
|
Starting to think Cascadia would be a better and better idea every day
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 02:43
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:Those links don't go to any information about lawsuits against Texas or Florida. Could you link to that? Thoguh posted:You have? Can you quote those posts? I must have missed them. I an very interested to learn more about how these states are suffering consequences for thier actions. You are very interested to learn more, huh? Thoguh posted:Reading the D&D thread today was a mistake. I am ashamed to post on the same website as that thread. At least the GBS thread is explained by it being people that aren't paying attention. Every D&D poster is Emily Oster alts. You appear to be the OP and IK of the Covid thread in CSPAM, so I'll humor you by asking: if reading this thread is so loving painful, why are you posting in it? Because it's quite obvious you aren't here to participate in good faith.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 02:45
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:Starting to think Cascadia would be a better and better idea every day I don’t think the fairly left leaning BC would want to join the (compared to us) fairly right leaning western states.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 02:46
|
|
|
Evis posted:I don’t think the fairly left leaning BC would want to join the (compared to us) fairly right leaning western states. Spin it as would-be Canadians yearning to join their brethren
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 02:48
|
|
|
Though the definition of Cascadia that I've seen most often only includes western Washington, western Oregon, and BC. The chud lands get to join Idaho
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 02:49
|
|
|
Meanwhile, in public events news… https://twitter.com/DEADLINE/status/1434993803140665347 https://twitter.com/ScottDMenzel/status/1435025224253194247
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 02:53
|
|
|
PAX West was over labor day weekend here and I'm wondering how much of a super spreader event that turned out to be
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 02:54
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:Though the definition of Cascadia that I've seen most often only includes western Washington, western Oregon, and BC. The chud lands get to join Idaho It really depends on the definition you're looking for. The McCloskey bioregion includes most of Washington, Idaho, and British Columbia, northern California, parts of Montana, Wyoming, and Yukon, and all but the SE deserts of Oregon. The modern independence movement generally focuses on the current political lines, including Washington, Oregon and British Columbia - but rarely Idaho or Montana - and often tying in California, Alaska, or Hawaii.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 03:05
|
|
|
mod sassinator posted:What is legitimately stopping a state like California or Washington from saying "FDA, we see you, we hear you, and we are going ahead with our own approval of vaccine boosters for our population." ? If Texas, Florida, etc. can decide to ban mask mandates, ban vaccine mandates or flagrantly violate and ignore federal rules why can't a blue state decide it's done the research and boosters are on the menu. What are the feds going to do, send in the DHS to kick down vaccine clinic doors? They couldn't even police state's marijuana sales (which are still federally illegal!). I have no idea. Apart from what other posters have said about nullification, I tried looking up if there was any existing regulatory guidance or precedents but couldn't find anything that would explicitly give me answer. In 2016 a ton of states starting passing Right to Try laws which allows terminally ill patients the ability to try drugs not yet approved by the FDA. This eventually became Federal Law in 2018. Assuming states are now procuring vaccine shipments themselves and don't have to go through the Federal Government for distribution then I would assume they could do it themselves. Again, I completely guessing at this point, but I'm assuming they'd get bogged down by legal issues and the Feds trying to stop them. If they keep going the FDA does work closely with CBP for imports and exports so since the vaccines need to be shipped in from Europe so they could seize them. I wish blue state would after watching that shitshow of an outcome but I don't think any of them would do it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 03:52
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:You are very interested to learn more, huh? Which of my posts in this thread do you not feel are in good faith? Asking for someone to provide evidence for claims they are making is absolutely a thing that is both reasonable and fitting with the tone of the thread. Thoguh fucked around with this message at 04:05 on Sep 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 03:58
|
|
|
Also I would just like to confirm that sourced quotes from other subforums are okay. Yes/No.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 04:17
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:
Slow News Day posted:You appear to be the OP and IK of the Covid thread in CSPAM, so I'll humor you by asking: if reading this thread is so loving painful, why are you posting in it? Because it's quite obvious you aren't here to participate in good faith. This kind of posting is extremely tiring. This thread is a huge improvement compared to the previous one and yet quotes like the ones above that appears to be more interested in bringing up posting wars and take cheap shots against their posting enemies than engage in debating. The CSPAM thread has been incredibly helpful and downright vital with its ability to recommend life saving masks and legitimate stores to purchase them. The thread has been so useful that there is even links to it from this very thread. It might be helpful for liberals and Democrats to understand that not all posters are interested in what laws are written as much as what can be accomplished practically. Focusing on the means when the outcome under Biden is not any different from the previous administration is something that other posters will find incredibly odd and even a little insensitive. This is especially true when places, like the US, have demonstrated that the means can and will change depending on who is impacted (wealthy vs poor / white vs POC). Example: The FDA advisory board declined boosters for folks under 65 yet that isn’t impacting wealthy folks or congressmen like Greg Abbott from getting them. It would be helpful if liberals and posters like the above understood that real people are impacted by the inaction and failures of the government. Arguing “that’s not how things are done” comes across as a little heartless. Example: As someone with family members that are antivax, being yelled at for calling the FDA’s mishandling of the public forum because “that’s just how it’s done” felt like being scolded for discussing reality. Some of us are trying to convince our loved ones not to jump head first into danger. When we can not, we look towards government institutions to protect them. The last thing we want to see is a government that enables their dangerous behavior. While I understand we all would like this terrible virus to go away, some of us need it to be contained a lot faster than others. Please do not forget that when you are about to post, especially if your post centers on why some action is just not possible due to some political wonky rule. It feels insulting because the same country that says they can’t protect people at home spent trillions on a war that did not benefit anyone but the wealthy. Last thing I will add: Professor Beetus is, in my opinion, doing an incredible job moving this thread in the right direction. It’s a thankless job being an IK and this thread is a huge improvement over the previous one. Beetus has done a great job balancing how to deal with passionate poster, like myself, in ways that are fair and constructive without hindering debates. Please keep that in mind folks, regardless of which spectrum of the covid debate you are on 
virtualboyCOLOR fucked around with this message at 04:29 on Sep 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 04:22
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:You are very interested to learn more, huh? why are you posting about posting when nobody else was?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 04:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 20:32 |
|
|
It be incredibly helpful if we didn't have bad faith and dumb arguments that are about liberal and leftist infighting in a thread, and instead focused on the reality of what covid is and what it does. What we should be focused on is how covid is effecting our healthcare system, where out system is reaching breaking points and how covid has caused a general breakdown across the world. We could be talking about how idaho is currently utilizing full triage care protocols for patients in the hospital, how ems services are so overwhelmed that they can't handle even basic patients, and how we currently have Ed systems that basically are so overwhelmed that lol wait times are in the period of days. Instead we keep having the same circular dumb arguments, the same posters that want to scream into the void, and the same bullshit. Let's actually post useful things that can help people, not argue loving sementics and scream about the loving libs
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 04:26
|
|