Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 44

Thread: Natural immunity to have its day in court

  1. #16 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    86,918
    Thanks
    35,051
    Thanked 21,761 Times in 17,091 Posts
    Groans
    985
    Groaned 2,342 Times in 2,261 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ExpressLane View Post
    The court uses juries to decide fact. That is consider a court decision. Juries only have power to make decisions because of the power of the court. The Judge only has power because of the power of the court. So when ones says Courts have ruled that means a ruling has come from a certain court not a specific Judge.


    So me a jury has made a decision out of the authority of the court.
    Do you think a judge and a jury will want to touch this with a 10 foot pole? The deaths of children would be in their hands.

  2. #17 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    49,883
    Thanks
    14,463
    Thanked 32,101 Times in 21,165 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 1,307 Times in 1,235 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by christiefan915 View Post
    You want people to get Covid with all its risks rather than get vaxxed? Why?

    "The next step is understanding that a call to rely on “natural immunity” is, first and foremost, a call to get infected with COVID.

    What many are calling “natural immunity” is just infection-mediated immunity as opposed to vaccine-mediated immunity. In addition to the risks of the acute infection—which include death—we still know little about “long COVID,” those lingering feelings of difficulty breathing, fatigue, brain fog, or a host of other symptoms that some people experience for months after infection."

    https://www.thebulwark.com/what-is-natural-immunity-and-why-should-you-get-the-vaccine-even-if-you-already-had-covid/
    “What many are calling “natural immunity” is just infection-mediated immunity as opposed to vaccine-mediated immunity.”

    You should hope Biden’s lawyers have something better than that lol.
    Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017

  3. #18 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    virginia
    Posts
    8,342
    Thanks
    4,239
    Thanked 5,393 Times in 3,337 Posts
    Groans
    4
    Groaned 1,121 Times in 1,030 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ExpressLane View Post
    The court uses juries to decide fact. That is consider a court decision. Juries only have power to make decisions because of the power of the court. The Judge only has power because of the power of the court. So when ones says Courts have ruled that means a ruling has come from a certain court not a specific Judge.


    So me a jury has made a decision out of the authority of the court.
    Your reply is not responsive.

    Lower courts have single judges. In all probability the case you have suggested would be decided at that level and only on appeal would be heard by a multiple judge court, all of which is completely beside the point. The question is whether any court would decide a medical treatment question raised by conflicting expert medical opinion.
    "Give pearls away and rubies but keep your fancy free."

  4. #19 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    49,883
    Thanks
    14,463
    Thanked 32,101 Times in 21,165 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 1,307 Times in 1,235 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BartenderElite View Post
    Why do you want more people to get COVID?
    Why do you want to waste jabs on the already immune?

    You own stock in Pfizer?
    Last edited by Darth Omar; 09-26-2021 at 12:54 PM.
    Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017

  5. #20 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    49,883
    Thanks
    14,463
    Thanked 32,101 Times in 21,165 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 1,307 Times in 1,235 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by martin View Post
    Your reply is not responsive.

    Lower courts have single judges. In all probability the case you have suggested would be decided at that level and only on appeal would be heard by a multiple judge court, all of which is completely beside the point. The question is whether any court would decide a medical treatment question raised by conflicting expert medical opinion.
    You’re making this sound harder than it will be.

    As mentioned, both sides will call their expert witnesses. Except this time, instead of all them being ‘narrative friendly’ the plaintiffs will call witnesses that oppose the idea of jabbing the immune.

    The legal question is simple: what is the *compelling* scientific justification for vaccinating the already immune? The justification has to be sufficiently compelling to over ride the rights of individuals or force them to take the jab against their will.

    Btw, you haven’t answered that question.
    Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017

  6. #21 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    20,422
    Thanks
    1,794
    Thanked 11,070 Times in 6,781 Posts
    Groans
    888
    Groaned 1,829 Times in 1,694 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Omar View Post
    Why do you think want to waste jabs on the already immune?

    You own stock in Pfizer?
    Yeah - I'm really losing sleep over "wasting jabs."

  7. #22 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    41,958
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 22,036 Times in 13,846 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 3,042 Times in 2,838 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Omar View Post
    The stated goal behind mandatory vaccination policies is to protect against the spread of disease, meaning that the crux of any policy is immunity. The notion that a previous COVID-19 infection provides natural immunity that can be at least as good as vaccination in some people is something a judge would likely need to consider in a challenge to a mandatory policy, especially against a government actor.

    “I think that a judge might reject a rule that's been issued by a body, like the U.S. Department of Labor or by a state, that has not been sufficiently thought through as it relates to the science,”

    https://www.aol.com/finance/natural-...123106348.html
    _________________

    Thank you!

    Think about that: a judge is going to have to step in and rescue science because Biden and Fauci are hell bent on jabbing every living soul when the science is clear that it’s not necessary. It may even be detrimental if it turns out we need more natural immunity in the mix to reach herd immunity.

    The problem is Big Pharma pulls Fauci’s strings and Biden is everyone’s puppet, literally, so it’s Max Vax all the way, even though it’s going to cause a worker shortage in healthcare and other industries.

    Sad state of affairs.
    So does that mean that other mandated vaccines as say measles are illegal and need to be dropped?

    There are too many precedents regarding vaccine mandates going back a century to reverse it now

    And bottom line, last I heard, something like seventy to eighty percent of the population would have to get Covid to attain natural herd immunity, at that rate, the effect on the population would be devastating.

  8. #23 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    49,883
    Thanks
    14,463
    Thanked 32,101 Times in 21,165 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 1,307 Times in 1,235 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    So does that mean that other mandated vaccines as say measles are illegal and need to be dropped?

    There are too many precedents regarding vaccine mandates going back a century to reverse it now

    And bottom line, last I heard, something like seventy to eighty percent of the population would have to get Covid to attain natural herd immunity, at that rate, the effect on the population would be devastating.
    Herd immunity isn’t the issue.

    Which of those precedents included vaccinating the already immune?
    Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017

  9. #24 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    86,918
    Thanks
    35,051
    Thanked 21,761 Times in 17,091 Posts
    Groans
    985
    Groaned 2,342 Times in 2,261 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Omar View Post
    Herd immunity isn’t the issue.

    Which of those precedents included vaccinating the already immune?
    How do you test their immunity?

  10. #25 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    49,883
    Thanks
    14,463
    Thanked 32,101 Times in 21,165 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 1,307 Times in 1,235 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    How do you test their immunity?
    Antibody tests. For reasons I’m unable to fathom, those aren’t being mandated. I guess the CDC sees no use in the data.
    Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017

  11. #26 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    86,918
    Thanks
    35,051
    Thanked 21,761 Times in 17,091 Posts
    Groans
    985
    Groaned 2,342 Times in 2,261 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Omar View Post
    Antibody tests. For reasons I’m unable to fathom, those aren’t being mandated. I guess the CDC sees no use in the data.
    Antibody testing is not currently recommended to determine if you are immune to COVID-19 following COVID-19 vaccination. Antibody testing should also not be used to decide if someone needs to be vaccinated. CDC’s Interim Guidelines for COVID-19 Antibody Testing provide more information on how antibody testing should be used and interpreted.

  12. #27 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    virginia
    Posts
    8,342
    Thanks
    4,239
    Thanked 5,393 Times in 3,337 Posts
    Groans
    4
    Groaned 1,121 Times in 1,030 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Omar View Post
    You’re making this sound harder than it will be.

    As mentioned, both sides will call their expert witnesses. Except this time, instead of all them being ‘narrative friendly’ the plaintiffs will call witnesses that oppose the idea of jabbing the immune.

    The legal question is simple: what is the *compelling* scientific justification for vaccinating the already immune? The justification has to be sufficiently compelling to over ride the rights of individuals or force them to take the jab against their will.

    Btw, you haven’t answered that question.
    Right. In that case the Court would be deciding the question on First Amendment grounds rather than imposing a legal judgment on a medical science question. I’ve said all along that could happen.
    "Give pearls away and rubies but keep your fancy free."

  13. #28 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    49,883
    Thanks
    14,463
    Thanked 32,101 Times in 21,165 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 1,307 Times in 1,235 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by martin View Post
    Right. In that case the Court would be deciding the question on First Amendment grounds rather than imposing a legal judgment on a medical science question. I’ve said all along that could happen.
    And the case will pivot on the answer to the question you won’t answer.
    Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017

  14. #29 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    49,883
    Thanks
    14,463
    Thanked 32,101 Times in 21,165 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 1,307 Times in 1,235 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    Antibody testing is not currently recommended to determine if you are immune to COVID-19 following COVID-19 vaccination. Antibody testing should also not be used to decide if someone needs to be vaccinated. CDC’s Interim Guidelines for COVID-19 Antibody Testing provide more information on how antibody testing should be used and interpreted.
    Do the antibody tests suck worse than PCR tests or something lol?
    Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017

  15. #30 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    86,918
    Thanks
    35,051
    Thanked 21,761 Times in 17,091 Posts
    Groans
    985
    Groaned 2,342 Times in 2,261 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Omar View Post
    Do the antibody tests suck worse than PCR tests or something lol?
    I do not know. Haven't read up much on that one. I trust the experts.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-14-2021, 09:44 PM
  2. Natural (acquired) immunity
    By anatta in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-07-2021, 06:21 AM
  3. 'Natural Immunity' to COVID-19: Taking Politics Out of Science
    By Underdog in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 02-24-2021, 04:53 PM
  4. vaxxer propaganda natural immunity is racism
    By Hermes Thoth in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-02-2020, 06:31 AM
  5. Court OKs broad Web libel immunity
    By LadyT in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-21-2006, 12:26 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •