My state has reached 90% first dose, 74% both doses. By sometime next week we should hit 80% both doses. Not bad considering that a few months back we were at less than 5% single dose.
The lockdowns are coming to an end, with everything completely open on December 1st. However for the unvaccinated, they are still locked down until December, while the rest of us can go about our business now.
So, after a bit of hesitancy, I got my jabs of AZ. Apart from a slight ache in the arms for a few days, nothing else happened.
I think I might keep wearing a mask for some months yet, for that little bit of extra protection.
Nope. And if it works (for you) then you shouldn't have anything to worry about from me or someone that actually has whatever.
Not that I'm in any high-risk category like being overweight/obese or have any other immune compromising conditions, or chain-smoke like a chimney. And I think if I did manage to catch it I'm certain I'd come through it - so then at that point, I'd have natural antibodies to help fight it off (anyway) should I get it again. That's what happens when things are endemic. That'll probably be around for who knows how long. People will probably catch it like they do the cold or the flu at least once a year if at all.
For the record, I'm not anti-vax. If anyone wants to get it that's completely up to them and I wish you luck in not having any negative side effects. Anyone that doesn't want to get it - I also believe that's completely up to them, and if they should get it (the full sickness, not the weakened sickness *wink-wink, nudge-nudge*) I also wish them luck.
Edit: Also, anyone that wants to take alternative (safer) remedies - that should be their choice too.
Edit: If there's anything I have a problem with is the regulations, lockdowns, and mandates. Needing a Vax certification to do jack-shit? Yeah. Anyone that pushes it or even supports such fascistic methods can get fucked.
Quote: Nope. And if it works (for you) then you shouldn't have anything to worry about from me or someone that actually has whatever.
This is, like the majority of your posts, not true. See Idaho where the ICUs are full and people who need urgent non-covid treatment are getting turned away.
> Nope. And if it works (for you) then you shouldn't have anything to worry about from > me or someone that actually has whatever. > > This is, like the majority of your posts, not true. See Idaho where the ICUs are full > and people who need urgent non-covid treatment are getting turned away.
The part of my post you quoted said nothing about ICUs. So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
Or are you saying that even if someone is vaccinated they're still in danger of getting COVID-19? Then I can't understand the point of even getting the jab.
The title of this topic might as well have asked: "Are we all wearing underwear?"
I'm not really surprised that you'd not only be so dense that you'd miss my point but you'd twist it into something that looks like an inane anti-vax argument.
Anyone who thinks "it's OK because I'll be OK" doesn't have (grand)children under 12. Even if I knew for sure I'd survive COVID without being vaccinated, I'd do it for them.
I supported Trump, and I got my first dose in January, and the second in early February. You're just getting yours now, after hesitating?
Go ahead and keep talking shit, but first dose being in January 15th, I had the first Jab before Biden was in office. You democrat idiots who are convinced that Republicans are racist, with all of the anti-white and anti-sematic shit coming from the left, and a POTUS that voted against the civil rights... you're a joke. You talk about Trump killing half a million people... another joke. It wasn't his fault. He identified it in his 2019 SOTU address... you know, where Pelosi simply ripped up the script? Biden inherited 3 vaccines. Made possible by TRUMP, in the fastest time in history. And yet there have already been far more deaths this year than last.
The border is a humanitarian crisis. Tens to 100s of thousands a day cross, unvaccinated, with no job prospects. They will be living off of our welfare dollars and getting medical care that our own citizens can't afford. No republican has ever been against immigration. EVER. We stand for the rule of law, that requires background checks and an approved VISA. It's safer for us, and safer for them. That is not xenophobic or racist.
The economy... how you like those gas prices? Noticing prices of just about everything starting to rise? Inflation is higher than it's been in 30 years. Trump PROVED that we are capable of being energy independent. Biden immediately choked us, and is begging OPEC to produce more?
Your idiotic hatred of one man has made you blind to the disaster unfolding in front of your eyes.
Just broke my personal record for number of consecutive days without dying!
> I supported Trump, and I got my first dose in January, and the second in early > February. You're just getting yours now, after hesitating? > > Go ahead and keep talking shit, but first dose being in January 15th, I had the first > Jab before Biden was in office. You democrat idiots who are convinced that > Republicans are racist, with all of the anti-white and anti-sematic shit coming from > the left, and a POTUS that voted against the civil rights... you're a joke. You talk > about Trump killing half a million people... another joke. It wasn't his fault. He > identified it in his 2019 SOTU address... you know, where Pelosi simply ripped up the > script? Biden inherited 3 vaccines. Made possible by TRUMP, in the fastest time in > history. And yet there have already been far more deaths this year than last. > > The border is a humanitarian crisis. Tens to 100s of thousands a day cross, > unvaccinated, with no job prospects. They will be living off of our welfare dollars > and getting medical care that our own citizens can't afford. No republican has ever > been against immigration. EVER. We stand for the rule of law, that requires > background checks and an approved VISA. It's safer for us, and safer for them. That > is not xenophobic or racist. > > The economy... how you like those gas prices? Noticing prices of just about > everything starting to rise? Inflation is higher than it's been in 30 years. Trump > PROVED that we are capable of being energy independent. Biden immediately choked us, > and is begging OPEC to produce more? > > Your idiotic hatred of one man has made you blind to the disaster unfolding in front > of your eyes.
You assume things that simply are not true. I am not a member of your loony-asylum failed state, so I do not care about your politics or your economy or your addresses, and I am not a "democrat", whatever that is. You might be a Trump-lover, but to the rest of the world he was portrayed as a dangerous devil child brat who simply cannot accept that he lost. The sooner he is shot, the better.
I don't know anything about anyone accusing anyone of being racist, nor do I care. I do believe in countries controlling their borders, and deciding who should or should not enter. Wasn't Trump going to put up a wall? What happened to that? There's millions of human mice plague invading your country all the time. What's your plan on stopping it?
And lastly, the vaccination. Congrats on getting it done. From what I heard, all Trumpers are part of the anti-vax crowd, who will lead themselves to extinction. Glad I was wrong. In my country, we didn't even have any vaccines until about May (you can blame our leaders for that), but once it got started it all happened very fast. 80% of the country, and 90% of my state are fully vaxxed now, and 3rd jabs are available too. Daily deaths are in single figures. Total deaths in your country: 775k, in my country 1.8k. The numbers speak for themselves.
The answer to all your questions is: Democrats. Trump did everything in his power to build as much wall as he could, but unfortunately, the House (controlled by... guess who?)... "controls the purse strings".
Just broke my personal record for number of consecutive days without dying!
> The answer to all your questions is: Democrats. Trump did everything in his power to > build as much wall as he could, but unfortunately, the House (controlled by... guess > who?)... "controls the purse strings".
Ummm… in 2017, plans and prototypes were being done and actual construction began in 2018. In other words, shit was in progress until Dems took over. Then he had to divert the only funds that were under HIS control (and validated/vindicated by the SCOTUS when the Dems cried about it), just to attempt to keep the ball rolling.
Funny how people who retort in memes, always seem to fall short.
> Ummm… in 2017, plans and prototypes were being done and actual construction began in > 2018. In other words, shit was in progress until Dems took over. Then he had to > divert the only funds that were under HIS control (and validated/vindicated by the > SCOTUS when the Dems cried about it), just to attempt to keep the ball rolling. > > Funny how people who retort in memes, always seem to fall short.
Funny how people say things like "Dems took over" as if it was a somehow magical event. "Dems took over" because the then-Congress was doing wildly unpopular things (like building a useless wall), and got voted out by people who wanted those wildly unpopular things (like building a useless wall) to stop.
> Ummm… in 2017, plans and prototypes were being done and actual construction began in > 2018. In other words, shit was in progress until Dems took over. Then he had to > divert the only funds that were under HIS control (and validated/vindicated by the > SCOTUS when the Dems cried about it), just to attempt to keep the ball rolling. > > Funny how people who retort in memes, always seem to fall short.
Did you ever stop to think why elected Republicans didn't simply fund the entire wall when they had control of the House, the Senate, and the White House? The only funds allocated by Congress during that time were $1.57B in the CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2018, $892M of that was for new primary or secondary barriers, $445M was for the replacement of existing barriers.
Sec. 230. (a) Of the amount made available in this Act under ``U.S. Customs and Border Protection--Procurement, Construction, and Improvements'', $1,571,000,000 shall be available only as follows: (1) $251,000,000 for approximately 14 miles of secondary fencing, all of which provides for cross-barrier visual situational awareness, along the southwest border in the San Diego Sector; (2) $445,000,000 for 25 miles of primary pedestrian levee fencing along the southwest border in the Rio Grande Valley Sector; (3) $196,000,000 for primary pedestrian fencing along the southwest border in the Rio Grande Valley Sector; (4) $445,000,000 for replacement of existing primary pedestrian fencing along the southwest border; (5) $38,000,000 for border barrier planning and design; and (6) $196,000,000 for acquisition and deployment of border security technology.
With the wall was estimated to cost $25B, it was going to take a very long time to build allocating $1.35B/year on actual barrier. Why didn't Congress just pass McCarthy's Build the Wall, Enforce the Law Act bill in 2018? That would have funded the entire wall in one bill. It was right there, it could have been codified into law that no Congress or President had the power to stop, but they just chose not to. Why? Do you feel those Republicans who had total control of the government and did the bare minimum share any blame with the crying Dems?
Republicans haven't been in a position to simply pass a law through the Senate in I don't even know how long. You still need 60 votes to prevent/stop a filibuster. When was the last time Republicans had 60 seats? Sure as hell wasn't in 2018~present. So no, it could NOT have simply been codified into law. It has to make it to POTUS' desk first...
> Republicans haven't been in a position to simply pass a law through the Senate in I > don't even know how long. You still need 60 votes to prevent/stop a filibuster. When > was the last time Republicans had 60 seats? Sure as hell wasn't in 2018~present. So > no, it could NOT have simply been codified into law. It has to make it to POTUS' desk > first...
Not as easy as you seem to think. Without digging into why a budget for the wall would have violated the Byrd rules, 2017 and 2018 reconciliation bills were already spoken for.
"Reconciliation has not been used to enact or rescind “discretionary” spending, which is spending controlled through the annual appropriations process. There’s nothing in the Budget Act or other rules that prohibits providing new funding, or rescinding existing funding, for discretionary programs through reconciliation. But the various restrictions on reconciliation probably make the process impractical as a means of enacting annual appropriations.
Since the mid-1980s, Senate rules have prohibited including provisions in reconciliation legislation that do not change the level of spending or revenues or the debt limit. (See the “Byrd Rule” questions below for more.)"
"Donald Trump After gaining control of Congress and the presidency in the 2016 elections, Republicans sought to partially repeal the ACA and pass a major tax cut bill in the 115th United States Congress. As the party lacked a 60-vote super-majority in the Senate, they sought to implement both policies through separate reconciliation bills, with the healthcare bill passed using the reconciliation process for fiscal year 2017 and the tax cut bill passed using the reconciliation process for fiscal year 2018.[34] Republicans were unable to pass their healthcare bill, the American Health Care Act of 2017, because three Senate Republicans and all Senate Democrats voted against it, preventing the bill from gaining majority support in the Senate.[35] With the defeat of their healthcare bill, congressional Republicans changed their focus to a separate reconciliation bill that would cut taxes.[36] Both houses of Congress passed a tax cut bill in late 2017, though the Byrd Rule required the stripping of some provisions deemed extraneous.[37] After both houses of Congress passed an identical tax cut bill, President Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 into law in December 2017.[38] Because of Byrd Rule restrictions, the individual tax cuts contained in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 will expire in 2026 barring further legislative action.[39]
> Not as easy as you seem to think. Without digging into why a budget for the wall > would have violated the Byrd rules, 2017 and 2018 reconciliation bills were already > spoken for. > > "Reconciliation has not been used to enact or rescind “discretionary” spending, which > is spending controlled through the annual appropriations process. There’s nothing in > the Budget Act or other rules that prohibits providing new funding, or rescinding > existing funding, for discretionary programs through reconciliation. But the various > restrictions on reconciliation probably make the process impractical as a means of > enacting annual appropriations. > > Since the mid-1980s, Senate rules have prohibited including provisions in > reconciliation legislation that do not change the level of spending or revenues or > the debt limit. (See the “Byrd Rule” questions below for more.)" > > "Donald Trump > After gaining control of Congress and the presidency in the 2016 elections, > Republicans sought to partially repeal the ACA and pass a major tax cut bill in the > 115th United States Congress. As the party lacked a 60-vote super-majority in the > Senate, they sought to implement both policies through separate reconciliation bills, > with the healthcare bill passed using the reconciliation process for fiscal year 2017 > and the tax cut bill passed using the reconciliation process for fiscal year > 2018.[34] Republicans were unable to pass their healthcare bill, the American Health > Care Act of 2017, because three Senate Republicans and all Senate Democrats voted > against it, preventing the bill from gaining majority support in the Senate.[35] With > the defeat of their healthcare bill, congressional Republicans changed their focus to > a separate reconciliation bill that would cut taxes.[36] Both houses of Congress > passed a tax cut bill in late 2017, though the Byrd Rule required the stripping of > some provisions deemed extraneous.[37] After both houses of Congress passed an > identical tax cut bill, President Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 into > law in December 2017.[38] Because of Byrd Rule restrictions, the individual tax cuts > contained in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 will expire in 2026 barring further > legislative action.[39]
Since they only passed one of the two bills they targeted for reconciliation in FYs 17 and 18, could that not have passed a different bill? Or do Senate rules prohibit trying and failing to use reconciliation, then trying again?
Previous 
Index 
Next 
Threaded 
Are we all vaccinated now?
Reply
[Re: 
