California Politics: Madame Senator, this is a morgue

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > California Politics: Madame Senator, this is a morgue

BattleHamster: Mar 18, 2009

Papercut posted:

Not really, it's been steadily gentrifying for 20-30 years now, basically since the start of the tech industry. Every time a tech bubble bursts, there is a brief lull, but the current trend is no different than the pre-DotCom trend.

That's why most of that Techcrunch article on the housing crisis posted earlier just comes across as vapid. It attributes all of these national trends that are really just manifestations of income inequality to some unique SF Bay Area experience or local political atmosphere, when really the same thing is happening in every thriving city in the country. It may be happening more quickly here because of how crazy the tech boom is, but it's not like low-skill workers getting priced out or people wanting to preserve historic architecture at the cost of redevelopment are unique San Francisco phenomena.

What a weird criticism. The second bullet point in the article is literally about how the tech migration is happening to big cities all over the place. All the author is doing is looking at this trend through the experiences and history of San Francisco because she lives there and knows a lot about the place.

# ¿ May 3, 2014 02:33

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 4, 2024 06:35

BattleHamster: Mar 18, 2009

Megaman's Jockstrap posted:

When my wife went to Berkley there were some tree sitters but it was for oak trees, not eucalyptus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_oak_grove_controversy

For a lot of the people who participated in this it was less about the trees and more about stopping the university from spending hundreds of millions of dollars on an athletes-only training center and new stadium for a mediocre football team.

# ¿ Nov 19, 2014 00:43

BattleHamster: Mar 18, 2009

Hitlers Gay Secret posted:

If I'm only buying two bags worth of groceries I've wasted my time.

Copperhound linked the solution to your grocery problem like 10 posts up.

Here it is again: http://www.christianiabikes.com/en/

# ¿ Sep 15, 2015 18:18

BattleHamster: Mar 18, 2009

Space-Bird posted:

Ok, but how are you gonna keep all your frozen pizzas cold until you get home?

You can put a cooler in the box and then put the pizzas in the cooler.

# ¿ Sep 15, 2015 18:25

BattleHamster: Mar 18, 2009

enraged_camel posted:

Why are fruits and flowers colorful? Because they have evolved to attract various animals (bees, mammals, etc.) and to get eaten by them so that the pollens and seeds spread.

This is the exact reason why humans find bright colors appealing. We have evolved to detect and become attracted to them because it helped us survive and thrive in the otherwise barren African savannah back in the day.

Native landscaping doesn't look as pleasant because it is designed to fit in to the rest of the environment (which is often times nowhere as green or bright), rather than stick out.

There are some problems with your theory seeing as bright colors can often be warning signals for harmful or poisonous plants and animals. The complexity of the human brain also means we can create connections that can overcome the kinds of subconscious evolutionary behavior you're talking about.

Basically its more complex then you making it out to be so generalizing the entirety of humanity isn't doing you any favors.

# ¿ Oct 23, 2015 20:36

BattleHamster: Mar 18, 2009

fits my needs posted:

No. They need to make the trains automated and cut the chaff. Too bad the unions will stone wall and block any changes that might make the commuters' experience better and make things more efficient. You can barely understand what the hell some conductors are saying like names of stops or other announcements. Why is that not automated? How many times has a disabled person been screwed over because of that? Can't lose those jobs!

Just as an aside, the new bart cars have automated station announcements and screens which show the station name.

# ¿ May 2, 2016 19:43

BattleHamster: Mar 18, 2009

Leperflesh posted:

I haven't listened to Forum regularly for about four years now - it used to be my go-to for commute time driving.

I didn't ever hate it. The moderator, Michael Krasny, is a decent interviewer. Unfortunately, he has "being aggressively fair" syndrome, an extremely widespread problem with modern journalism where if you have someone on your show with A Opinion, you have to have someone else on the show with the opposite opinion, no matter what. This apparently makes for more exciting debates, but when one guest's opinion is mostly or entirely correct - backed by facts, well-researched, whatever - and the others is objectively horseshit, this approach is maddening.

I want my news people to do loving analysis, not just let two people with opposing opinions have some kind of equal-time debate. Debates have their place, but they're not always the best way to explore a topic.

Whoever screens the callers and picks the emails to be read on the air also does a pretty garbage job at filtering for useful questions that add to the discussion. I realize it's not always possible to know in advance that the question someone wants to ask will turn out to be wildly tangental or meandering or actually just an excuse to tell their own anecdote (which is never not annoying), but I rarely heard a question posed by the public that I thought was actually a good question, and half the time the guests or Michael simply didn't answer it anyway, or started to answer it and then went off on a tangent.

All that said, I don't find it to be a bad show. If it was, I wouldn't have listened to it regularly. But I don't think it's as good as it should be, and the fact that it's actually extremely good in comparison to the alternatives is really really depressing.

The idea of a forum is a place open to public expression no matter how objectively horseshit or entirely correct it may be. There's an argument to be made about how educational/informative such a place is, but I think it has at least some advantages over a "here's the correct opinion and why its correct" approach.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the goal of the show is not to necessarily come to a conclusion about what opinion is correct or explore the topic in the best possible way but rather to explore the topic in this one specific way that gives a voice to practically anyone who wants to express themselves.

Its also worth saying for people not familiar with the program that many times they will only have one side of a story so its not always a pro/anti discussion that is taking place.

# ¿ Sep 28, 2016 17:26

BattleHamster: Mar 18, 2009

Brodeurs Nanny posted:

So I've been hearing a lot about Prop 61 but haven't had time to really delve into it until now, as I go through my ballot. People arguing against it are saying drug companies will simply raise the cost of veteran's drugs so they can continue to charge what they charge ordinary people and gently caress everyone over in the process, but I thought the VA was funded federally and couldn't be tampered with?

I don't think either side of prop 61 has a good idea as to how it will play out if it is enacted, so your decision will probably come down to how you think drug companies will react to such a measure. I know nothing about the legality of raising VA prices, but the voter guide lists it as a possible outcome in the ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST section.

# ¿ Oct 26, 2016 19:43

BattleHamster: Mar 18, 2009

Shbobdb posted:

It's a win-win either way. Either the drug prices get lowered for everybody (yay!) or the drug companies get further vilified because they hate ARE TROOPS and pushes "gently caress drug companies" closer to the center. Plus, further eroding the benefits given to exploited people fighting imperialist wars helps push the very visible veterans voting block left. For example, I've noticed a very sharp leftward migration in many of my formerly enlisted friends starting at around 2008 when they realized that maybe Republicans don't have their best interests at heart. They've transitioned from "cultural Republicans" voting straight ticket R because that is the American Team to conservative Democrats. I'll take it.

The other scenario, and the one I think is more likely to happen than higher prices for the VA, is that drug companies simply ignore prop 61 and it becomes that much harder for the state to procure perscription drugs. Also...

California Voter Guide posted:

Drug Manufacturers Might Decline to Offer Lowest VA Prices to the State for Some Drugs.
The measure places no requirement on drug manufacturers to offer prescription drugs to the state at the lowest VA prices. Rather, the measure restricts actions that the state can take (namely, prohibiting the state from paying more than the lowest VA prices for prescription drugs). Therefore, if manufacturers decide it is in their interest not to extend the VA�s favorable pricing to California state agencies (for example, to avoid consequences such as those described above), drug manufacturers could decline to offer the state some drugs purchased by the VA. In such cases, these drugs would be unavailable to most state payers. Instead, the state would be limited to paying for drugs that either the VA does not purchase or drugs that manufacturers will offer at the lowest VA prices. (However, to comply with federal law, Medi-Cal might have to disregard the measure�s price limits and pay for prescription drugs regardless of whether manufacturers offer their drugs at or below VA prices.) This manufacturer response could reduce potential state savings under the measure since it might limit the drugs the state can pay for to those that, while meeting the measure�s price requirements, are actually more expensive than those currently paid for by the state.

So it is possible that California ends up paying more in some cases.

There's also the fact that the price paid by the VA is not always publicly know which creates yet another barrier for procurement.

I think Pete's opinion on Prop 61 makes the NO argument better than I ever could.

# ¿ Oct 26, 2016 20:19

BattleHamster: Mar 18, 2009

Xaris posted:

The only thing that ultimately convinced me to vote yes is that drug companies have spent $$$$$$ well over documented 100 million and has probably much more in other ways too

They have well paid analysts whose job is to figure out how every piece of legislation could hurt their bottom line and have decided it's worth blowing a shitton of money fighting it... so they're definitely worried and have weighed in favor for the cost of fighting it vs potential fuckery scenarios to blow it off. Which means they're still expecting to lose a lot of money one way or another and/or believe it will eventually lead to further legislation hurting them further as public starts to show support for unfucking drug prices

If they didn't spend anything at all I probably would have went with no.

As someone who is voting no, my rationalization for the amount of money spent comes from the 100 million dollars being made up of many 1-10 million dollar donations from individual pharmaceutical companies. Most of the companies listed on Ballotpedia have net incomes near 5 billion dollars so setting aside 10 million in an attempt to offset the mess that this could cause is less than I would have expected. In my mind, this amount of money is more indicative of outcomes like a PR hit or multiple legal battles especially since this proposition passing and actually working the way its intended to could set a standard for other states to do the same thing.

# ¿ Oct 28, 2016 17:36

BattleHamster: Mar 18, 2009

Sagebrush posted:

Last election there was a good summary in this thread of what all the propositions on the ballot were about, and the likely outcomes of each one. Has anyone made something similar this year? And maybe one for the San Francisco local measures too?

FCKGW posted:

Here's the prop sites I use usually:

Pete rates the props
League of Women Voters of CA
Ballotpedia
LA Times

For city or county stuff the League of Women Voters usually has a local chapter with recommendations like the San Francisco one Fermun linked to.

# ¿ Nov 3, 2016 16:51

BattleHamster: Mar 18, 2009

53 is really close and I really hope it doesn't go yes... FOR FUCKS SAKES DO THESE PEOPLE EVEN KNOW WHAT A REVENUE BOND IS?

Also holy poo poo at people wanting to speed up death penalty proceedings.

Only 14% reporting right now so things could definitely change. I should probably just wait for tomorrow.

# ¿ Nov 9, 2016 05:36

BattleHamster: Mar 18, 2009

ComradeCosmobot posted:

And are more likely to get executed due to the shorter appeals process. Hooray!

Also, weed is not really legal, since you can be sure that Trump's DEA head will be cracking down even on medical marijuana dispensaries.

I realize there are a lot of terrible feelings and hyperbole going around after the election, but a google search will tell you that Trump really doesn't care that much about recreational marijuana use and has suggested he might reschedule it to Schedule 2 or lower.
(http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/11/09/heres-what-a-trump-presidency-means-for-marijuana.aspx)

Even if you think that everything he says is a lie, It seems like he'll have so much other poo poo on his plate that going against his platform of deregulation and states rights to stop marijuana use would be very low on his list of priorities.

Mechanical Fiend posted:

Does anyone know when I'll be able to smoke that sweet sweet legal weed? Did they outline a timeline or something in the text of 64?

It's legal right this very moment. The only thing that is going to take a while is getting a business license for selling recreational marijuana which will take until 2018. So if you want to be 100% legal you either have to grow it yourself or a friend with a medical marijuana card has to gift it to you.

BattleHamster fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Nov 9, 2016

# ¿ Nov 9, 2016 16:59

BattleHamster: Mar 18, 2009

ComradeCosmobot posted:

Told you legalized marijuana was a dead letter.

This doesn't really change my own opinions on the subject and I think you're jumping to conclusions calling it a dead letter especially since the uncertainty about what Trump will choose to actually do while in office is a big factor. While the appointment of Jeff Sessions increases the likelihood of a federal crackdown, I still think the Trump administration will be against fighting this battle.

I don't have any great evidence for why this is but, based on that article, Session's whole problem with marijuana seems based around a morals and values system that I don't believe Trump subscribes to. Combine this with the fact that Trump appears to run a very tight ship with those he employs, his populist campaign platform, his opinions on marijuana espoused during the campaign, and the variety and amount of states that have some form of marijuana legalization in place and you end up with what I believe is a very unlikely scenario.

# ¿ Nov 18, 2016 19:41

BattleHamster: Mar 18, 2009

ComradeCosmobot posted:

Did you not live through the same election the rest of us did, or something?

Perhaps this was the wrong wording, but what I mean by this is that he seems willing to drop people from his staff for various reasons (perhaps as simple as dislike or perceived loyalty to the campaign) with very little diplomacy. I think we saw this with Paul Manafort and Corey Lewandowski, and are also seeing it with the recent news about Chris Christie's transition team.

Cup Runneth Over posted:

Wow, your naive optimism is something to behold.

Thank you

# ¿ Nov 18, 2016 22:43

BattleHamster: Mar 18, 2009

MaxxBot posted:

Sorry for skipping to the last page but can someone help me understand why the California Dems are so lovely on criminal justice and prison reform issues? The fact that Prop 47 had to be approved by the public over opposition from Dems in a "progressive" state with a bad prison overcrowding problem seems odd to me.

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_47,_Reduced_Penalties_for_Some_Crimes_Initiative_(2014)

You should check ballotpedia before posting stuff like this because its not true.

Propositions can be a terrible way to pass laws, and there are plenty of valid reasons why progressives might voice opposition for a proposition that is considered progressive.

If you want to know Jerry Brown's thoughts on criminal justice and prison reform issues its much more useful to look at Prop 57 which was authored by Brown and which he answered many questions on.

# ¿ Feb 2, 2017 20:36

BattleHamster: Mar 18, 2009

MaxxBot posted:

If propositions are a bad way to pass laws then why didn't their Dem supermajority state government act to make these changes instead? Especially with regards to drug possession charges, I don't see any excuse why they couldn't have made those changes legislatively.

The reason I brought up that propositions can be a terrible way to pass laws was because you appeared to be making the argument that because Jerry Brown/California Democrats did not support the Prop 47, that means they are lovely on criminal justice reform and not actually progressive. Ignoring the fact many democrats did support prop 47, I was trying to point out that this line of thinking is flawed because often times there are legit progressive arguments to be made in opposition to a progressive proposition (see Prop 61 for a recent example of this).

One reason why Prop 47 isn't great for examining California Dem's positions on criminal justice and prison reform issues (at least in this context) is because many of the internet news articles from that time are already 404'd. However, on that same Ballotpedia page there is a quote from The Bakersfield Californian:

quote:

Recently, the Legislature made a timid effort to revise charging and sentencing in California. Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed the bill, noting his administration is scheduled to issue a comprehensive report and recommendations for reforming the system next year. Voters should reject Proposition 47 in November and give the governor a chance to recommend reforms.

So, not knowing the full details of what happened in this situation, there is evidence that Jerry Brown was pushing for criminal justice reform but wanted to wait until the 2015 to do so.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2017 19:47

BattleHamster: Mar 18, 2009

cheese posted:

Hearing that Newsom spent a lot on adds against Cox to get Republicans to turn out for him in an attempt to avoid having to face another Democrat in November. The long term consequences being that by having a Republican option for Gov., that Republican turnout in CA may be higher this fall and actually cost multiple local and even Representative seats, hurting Democrat's chances of taking the house. Any truth to that?

No. Unless you believe that Newsom's attack ads somehow accounted for nearly half (500k+) of John Cox's votes.

# ¿ Jun 9, 2018 01:17

BattleHamster: Mar 18, 2009

CopperHound posted:

Just heard a commercial on the radio extolling prop 13 and warning of special interest groups that want to dismantle it.

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has the balls to say prop 13 helps the budgeting of local government.

Yea there's a proposition you're not going to like on the ballot in November:

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_13_Tax_Transfer_Initiative_(2018)

quote:

A "yes" vote supports amending Proposition 13 (1978) to allow homebuyers who are age 55 or older or severely disabled to transfer their tax assessments, with a possible adjustment, from their prior home to their new home, no matter (a) the new home's market value; (b) the new home's location in the state; or (c) the buyer's number of moves.

It's absolutely terrible and has huge amounts of cash support from realtors associations who love having extremely high home prices.

# ¿ Jun 13, 2018 07:46

BattleHamster: Mar 18, 2009

Pete Rates the Propositions doesn't have his detailed analysis for any of the props up yet but he does have summaries:

http://www.peterates.com/props-1118.shtml

Interestingly he's decided to vote NO on props 8 and 11 because he doesn't feel that ballot initiatives are good solutions to these problems.

# ¿ Sep 26, 2018 22:07

BattleHamster: Mar 18, 2009

siotle posted:

Not entirely sure, but this article (https://cal.streetsblog.org/2019/02/12/newsom-says-high-speed-rail-serving-the-central-valley-is-not-a-train-to-nowhere/) says that the claims have been exaggerated and that all he said is that there�s no clear path for the full path, not that he�s canceling it.
I�d have to read the full transcript of his speech to be certain though.

Thanks for this. This comes off as much more reasonable compared to the Buzzfeed article.

Looking around at a related article from last year (https://cal.streetsblog.org/2018/04/05/legislature-ponders-the-future-of-high-speed-rail-program) it appears that Gavin is just moving forward with the suggested options put forth by the High-Speed Rail Peer Review Group:

quote:

Louis Thompson, testifying for the High-Speed Rail Peer Review Group, outlined four possible options for action at this point (�There may be others,� he said):

First, the state could abandon the project. This would mean stranding all the current assets, including the half-built viaduct near Fresno, losing a considerable number of jobs and impacting many small businesses, and having to pay back stimulus funds the federal government has contributed to the project. This is not really a credible option, said Thompson.

Second, the Central Valley portion of the project could be completed, and the state �could keep whatever value we could create there,� serving San Joaquin Valley cities with a much better rail system than is possible with the current Amtrak-sharing-tracks-with-freight situation. With this option, �you would at least complete something usable in the Central Valley,� he said, which should mean not having to pay back the federal funds.

Third, the Central Valley portion could be completed between Bakersfield and Merced; current Caltrain electrification plans could be extended to Gilroy, and plans to reconfigure downtown L.A.�s Union Station could proceed. All three areas would benefit from faster, cleaner, more frequent train connections with these project pieces complete, even without being connected in one continuous line. The Union Station project, for example, would increase regional rail capacity by as much as sixty percent, according to a representative from L.A. Metro, making faster trips possible from San Luis Obispo to San Diego.

Then, the last remaining piece�the Pacheco Pass Tunnel�could be considered a separate finishing project, and it would wait until funding could be found specifically for it.

This option, said Thompson, makes the best use of the current situation. It would provide real, near-term benefits, although financing for the remainder of the system would still be up in the air.

Fourth, the state could recommit to long-haul high-speed rail from San Francisco to Los Angeles as originally envisioned, understanding that the costs will probably end up being much larger than originally estimated. This option, said Thompson, �cannot be done with current funding provisions or sources.�

Doesn't seem that crazy to me in light of this.

# ¿ Feb 13, 2019 01:33

BattleHamster: Mar 18, 2009

Me buying an HSR ticket:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DO3uVW7ejpc&t=101s

# ¿ Feb 21, 2020 23:58

BattleHamster: Mar 18, 2009

There were 3 ballot measures in Berkeley (2 parcel taxes and 1 bond) to fund school infrastructure improvements and all passed by large margins.

If you're bummed from Super Tuesday, and want to see some homeowners melting down about having to pay $300-400 more in taxes annually, then I suggest you check out the comments on this Berkeleyside article:

https://www.berkeleyside.com/2020/03/03/initial-voting-results-show-strong-support-for-berkeley-school-measures

for some inexplicable reason the comments on Berkeleyside tend to be heavily fiscally conservative and not at all representative of the people who live and vote here.

# ¿ Mar 5, 2020 17:51

BattleHamster: Mar 18, 2009

no hay camino posted:

So is anyone here planning on getting additional "booster" shots? I read that it's only needed for the immunocompromised.

Hell no, unless there is overwhelming evidence from sources unconnected to Pfizer that it has a substantial impact.

Did people just forget that pharmaceutical companies are mustache-twirling levels of evil, and Pfizer is no exception? We are still in the midst of an opioid epidemic where pharmaceutical companies were paying doctors to overprescribe medication which resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands and left even more addicted to the stuff. The recent news about Israel approving a 3rd shot for persons 60 and older is something to be aware of, but its not evidence that anyone needs a 3rd shot or even that it helps.

# ¿ Jul 29, 2021 00:22

BattleHamster: Mar 18, 2009

Sharks Eat Bear posted:

Just to clarify � would FDA EUA/approval of a Phase 3 trial conducted by Pfizer satisfy your criteria, or are you suggesting it needs to come from a trial that Pfizer was not involved in? If it�s the latter, then that standard probably won�t be met, but also I don�t think it was met for the current 2-dose EUAs either.

Its not even about what kind of study they do, its about how I haven't heard a single person outside of doctors and CEOs from Pfizer say that a 3rd shot is a good idea right now. Every outside source that I can find (medical professional/healthcare agency) seems to be saying "this MIGHT be a good idea in the future but it needs more study, the current vaccines work really well against delta, and extra doses should go to all the countries where they don't have enough vaccine."

Pfizer has incredible financial incentive to sell a 3rd shot to rich countries, waaaaaay more than it does selling 1st and 2nd doses to poorer countries. IMO this alone should make you highly skeptical of getting a third shot. The delta variant was originally discovered in India and yet only 26% of the population has been vaccinated there and only 7.3% have been fully vaccinated. The idea that we should be getting 3rd shots to protect against a variant that likely originated from a country where most don't even have their first, let alone second, is absurd to me.

# ¿ Jul 29, 2021 21:06

BattleHamster: Mar 18, 2009

linking two tweets that start with BREAKING and NEW as the first words...

Did you look into the decision by the Israeli Health Ministry? I linked an article in my previous post and not only is it for individuals over 60 years old, it also didn't seem to be a unanimous consensus and more of a test to see if it's actually is a good idea.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israeli-health-ministry-panel-recommends-third-covid-shot-for-older-people-1.10049085

quote:

Experts advising the Health Ministry have recommended that older people receive a third dose of the coronavirus vaccine, though they disagree on whether the cohort should start at 60 years old, 65 or 70.

Some of the data presented at a discussion Wednesday suggested that the vaccine's effectiveness in preventing severe symptoms among 60-year-olds and above has dropped to 81 percent from 97 percent in January.

While most panel members favored a booster shot for anyone 60 or older, others suggested that the bar be raised to 65 or 70. The Health Ministry's director general, Nachman Ash, will make the final decision.

Prime Minister Naftali Bennett will meet the health minister and other experts on Thursday to discuss the health or economic implications of the said move, a statement by the prime minister's office reads.

Earlier Wednesday, experts told Haaretz that there is still not enough data on the effectiveness and safety of a third dose, but they also expressed concerns about delaying the decision.

Prof. Galia Rahav, head of the infectious disease unit at Sheba Medical Center near Tel Aviv, will head a research team looking into the move. Rahav told Haaretz that she hopes to begin testing a third dose next week.

�We're seeing a dramatic drop in the level of immunity and we know the elderly respond less to vaccines than the young, but we don�t have this data for COVID-19,� she said.

On Tuesday, Prime Minister Naftali Bennett declared that Israel was �very close� to making a decision on COVID booster shots, and on obtaining the additional doses needed to make that happen.

Bennett's remarks came two weeks after the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control said there was no need at this time for a third dose, but as Israeli Health Ministry data showed a sharp decline in the vaccine's effectiveness against infection and a slight decline in preventing severe illness.

# ¿ Jul 29, 2021 21:34

BattleHamster: Mar 18, 2009

Cup Runneth Over posted:

The financial incentive has no bearing on the efficacy of the vaccine. Don't let your distrust for Big Pharma cloud the many studies that have been done on how the vaccine effectively reduces the risk to individuals and how two doses is much more effective than one, and furthermore 3-4 months between doses is far more effective than 3-4 weeks-- it follows that the same would hold for a 3rd dose. There's no evidence otherwise.

Its about percentages and time frame. look at the article I just linked, specifically this part.

BattleHamster posted:

Some of the data presented at a discussion Wednesday suggested that the vaccine's effectiveness in preventing severe symptoms among 60-year-olds and above has dropped to 81 percent from 97 percent in January.

This is for individuals above 60 and afaik this decay in efficacy happens slower for people as you go down in age. I'm in my 30's and in fine health, I don't need a third shot just to gain a few extra percentage points especially if that vaccine can go to someone who is currently unvaccinated.

If this changes and a bunch of governments and doctors start saying its a good idea and that I'm now at risk even with 2 shots then I'll consider getting a third at that time. But that hasn't happened yet.

# ¿ Jul 29, 2021 22:09

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 4, 2024 06:35

BattleHamster: Mar 18, 2009

Shear Modulus posted:

you said that there have been no non-pfizer employees suggesting booster shots. the article you just posted says that a panel of experts recommended a booster shot to the israeli government. unless everyone on this panel and/or in the israeli health ministry is employed by pfizer, your statement that nobody is recommending booster shots that aren't on pfizer's payroll is wrong.

You got me dude, good job.

# ¿ Jul 29, 2021 22:12

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > California Politics: Madame Senator, this is a morgue