Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Mike]

IOW: Fuck yeah!!

[Hannibal]

We need more of this.

e9c0a121-358c-4503-b52d-16a926117def-c01_scov_05.JPG?width=660&height=441&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp.jpg

[Hannibal]

Meanwhile...

81DdDfvMvRL.jpg

“An impressive road map to dealing with a crisis as serious as any we have faced.”—The Washington Post

[Jeff Buchanan]

The WSJ reported this morning on a number of preliminary studies that suggest a second vaccine dose may not be required to achieve an adequate and protective anti-body response in previously SARS-2 infected individuals. The CDC is aware of this possibility and has been for about a month. No changes to dosing schedules for the two mRNA vaccines already out there have been made. The UK has authorized delays in the second shot of the AZ product in order to get more people at least one shot and have done so based on studies like this in their country on the AZ product.

Here are the problems that I see: (1) No one knows for sure what a "protective" AB response is. Finding this out entails long range studies that follow inoculated persons over say, a year, and determining if they get infected again during that period due to waning AB response. (2) If you're trying to reach herd immunity with a combination of vaccines and previously infected individuals and you know trials of the mRNA vaccines assured a strong AB response with two doses, the smart thing to do right now is to rely on that knowledge and administer two shots to everyone - previously infected or not. (3) If you wanted to undertake a sensible and safe approach to a one shot process for previously infected persons, you'd have to measure ABs with serial serology studies for that sub-group to insure that group is actually as safe as a two shot sub-group. That adds a layer of complexity that compared to just administering the two shots to everyone for now, is a lot simpler. Maybe in a year or two, with adequate study, previously infected persons won't need two shots but it's too early to go that route IMO.

While this is a type of good news that I like the MSM reporting on, it is also an example of reporting that takes preliminary study results and blows them up to the point where consumers of that news treat it as fact. I will admit the WSJ article was very detailed and presented in a simple, yet scientifically accurate enough way, to represent good journalistic competency.

[Jeff Buchanan]

The lead story in the local Sun Sentinel paper this morning was about vaccine distribution inequity. The story was loaded with bar-graphs visually demonstrating the huge difference between vaccine administration for blacks, hispanics and whites ..... whites way ahead of course. Is this because, like some Desantis critics complain, the governor is taking care of his white, mostly affluent supporters? Of course, it's an inaccurate claim without basis in fact but that gets lapped up by his political opponents and anyone of color or ethnic "minority." The problem with the article, which does highlight real disparities is that it looks for no underlying cause, other than political, for the differences by race and ethnicity.

IMO, some of the causes are systemic, for example, transportation issues, distances from vaccine sites, early on a lack of understanding about how to register on line for the vaccine (all counties and retail outlets are now doing this by phone having abandoned on-line registration web sites). But a lot of it is due to a failure of initiative or priority setting by those who are non-whites. I don't think there is any question about that but, nooooo, we have to have the political side-shows get coverage instead of reporting that a focus on personal responsibility and initiative might be a better way to increase the vaccination rates for non-whites than insisting government somehow "fix" the disparities while the disadvantaged continue to be unaccountable for bad choices or behaviors.

[Da Geezer]

Mandatory vaccination and IDs proving you've been vaccinated are one thing. Linking that to some type of voter registration or citizenship ID device is another. I won't try to defend the later, even though I believe it has it's benefits and most people are fine with passports, still, I could advocate for them, but the former, absolutely.

Failing to obtain a C-19 vaccine not only harms the public good but governments enforcing a vaccination requirement in a public health emergency does not violate 14A and is entirely legal. Jacobson v Massachusetts, 197 - US11 (1905).

First, it is "entirely legal" and desirable to enforce the Constitution and to allow ONLY US citizens of an appropriate age to vote.

Second, I couldn't find a better phrase than "internal passport" to describe the voter ID I have in mind. Sorry

Third, in today's society, almost any change has to be tied to Covid in order to be politically feasible. The Dems have every possible vested interest in letting non-citizens vote; they have said so. But Dems also favor anything that increases government power, and a personal document with photo ID certainly does that. As a libertarian, I believe unregulated voting is a greater threat to personal liberty than a document showing information that Big Tech already has access to. If you favor motor-voter, and most statists do, then all you are adding to the license is a photo and a citizenship affirmation. But then aliens couldn't vote. What is unfair about following the Constitution?

[Whitley]

The fundamental problem with voter ID is what do you do about all those people that are actually citizens BUT do not have a state photo ID? A lot of those people are elderly and a good portion of those are lower income minorities.

[THE_WIZARD_]

Combine the photo ID's with the proof of vaccination document.

Problem solved comrade!

[Mike]

The fundamental problem with voter ID is what do you do about all those people that are actually citizens BUT do not have a state photo ID? A lot of those people are elderly and a good portion of those are lower income minorities.

A) it is not difficult to obtain a government issued ID. B) there are programs in place to help underserved populations do just that. C) I find it unconscionable to suggest that certain demographics cannot get a ride to the SoS/DMV every decade or two. D) there needs to be a certain level of commitment on behalf of the citizens who wish to take part in the democratic process. None of this is hard.

[AlabamAlum]

When the State of Alabama mandated IDs at polling places, they offered rides to the DMV to all who were unable to do so themselves. In a state with a population of 5 million, we had 230 who said they needed rides. The IDs and the rides were free. There is no real excuse.

[THE_WIZARD_]

shaddup

Orangeman gone. All is well.

[Da Geezer]

A) it is not difficult to obtain a government issued ID. B) there are programs in place to help underserved populations do just that. C) I find it unconscionable to suggest that certain demographics cannot get a ride to the SoS/DMV every decade or two. D) there needs to be a certain level of commitment on behalf of the citizens who wish to take part in the democratic process. None of this is hard.

Exactly. When I was running a charter school, we decided to put in place a system where everyone who entered the building had to show photo ID, usually a drivers license. In a school of 660 students, we had one family need some form of photo ID (which we provided). The school was 90% black and 8% Hispanic. We were talking about this at a board meeting and a parent said, "...what you gotta ask any fool who can't get an ID is....man, are you too lazy or are you too stupid"?

[Jeff Buchanan]

Exactly. When I was running a charter school, we decided to put in place a system where everyone who entered the building had to show photo ID, usually a drivers license. In a school of 660 students, we had one family need some form of photo ID (which we provided). The school was 90% black and 8% Hispanic. We were talking about this at a board meeting and a parent said, "...what you gotta ask any fool who can't get an ID is....man, are you too lazy or are you too stupid"?

This same line of thinking applies to the what is being reported in FL as a lack of equity in vaccine distribution. There are dozens of pathways for those eligible to get the vaccine from telephone registration to public health officials, most of them volunteers, going into neighborhoods to either administer the vaccines or sign people up to get them.

I don't want to hear it.

[Tom W]

shaddup

Orangeman gone. All is well.

Ah, but Black is the new Orange. With the Orangeman gone, progress being made against COVID and every airliner making it to its intended destination, Racism is the only plotline that works right now.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Three Supreme Court items

1) Finally made a decision on the Trump tax case being pursued by Cy Vance in New York City. Trump lost.

2) Decided not to hear a case against the State of Pennsylvania re: the election. This specifically dealt with the PA Supreme Court decision allowing mail ballots to be received 3 days after election and still count. In the end those ballots wound up being segregated and not counted and never existed in numbers significant enough to swing any race. So the suit was tossed. But Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented and wanted to hear the case anyways. Presumably so they could slap down the PA Supreme Court.

3) The Court is hearing arguments today in a never-ending water dispute between Florida and Georgia. I don't know why I find these "water wars" cases interesting, but I do. This case is specifically about the Apalachicola/Chattahoochee watershed. The river system cuts across the Florida panhandle between Tallahassee and Panama City, forms about half the Georgia/Alabama border, then takes a sharp NE turn through the Atlanta area and off into the Appalachian foothills. Florida has complained for a long time that Georgia is taking more than its fair share of water and I believe that is overwhelmingly because of Atlanta.