It's only fair to point out that Biden is also racist AF. (AF= as ... can't be mentioned on AN, because we're nurses and we don't swear, ever).
The Omicron variant has so far been detected in South Africa, Botswana, Israel, Belgium, Hong Kong, UK, Germany, Italy, and Czechia. But of those countries the US has implemented travel bans on only two of those countries; South Africa and Botswana. In addition to those two, travel bans have been enacted for eSwatini, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, and Zimbabwe, even though no cases of Omicron have been detected there.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
1 hour ago, Beerman said:
Yes, you've mentioned that many times over the past few years. Yet, it seems engaging me and throwing insults my way is one of your main ways to get a dopamine fix in your retirement years.
Its sad, really.
No.
I guess you are pretending that insults don't get tossed by you while you are also pretending that you don't regularly cite or quote Shapiro's media platform. It doesn't matter who the author of the article or opinion might be, the content is selected, commissioned and approved by Shapiro. I have read quite a bit of that content exclusively because you linked it for me and others to read.
Pfizer is saying their booster is showing signs of effectiveness against Omicron variants.
There is the idea that boosters shouldn't be promoted because the poorer countries haven't even got the first one yet.
But then there's the idea of America First.
Then there's the idea the vaccines are too dangerous and it's just greed on the part of the pharmaceutical companies. How convenient for them the first two vaccines don't work against Omicron but the booster does.
I met a man today, I kid you not in December 2021 that told me that covid was a hoax and it's the vaccines that are killing so many people, not covid.
I guess you are pretending that insults don't get tossed by you while you are also pretending that you don't regularly cite or quote Shapiro's media platform. It doesn't matter who the author of the article or opinion might be, the content is selected, commissioned and approved by Shapiro. I have read quite a bit of that content exclusively because you linked it for me and others to read.
What's the issue with Shapiro? I personally find him annoying and prudish but what I have seen from him doesn't sound too radical and he uses facts and cite sources? I'm seriously wondering. What's the deal with him? What does he say that you find objectionable?
I should report y'all for talking about each other instead of staying on topic, but I don't do that. It's distracting and old.
I'm going salt and oil free with my popcorn these days.
Oh and I bet you've wanted to report me a few times and I understand why! Thank you.
What I will say is for the most part everyone on here that goes back and forth does seem to value freedom of speech or I think many of us would have been booted by now! Especially me. I'll take accountability for that. I can get quite snippy at times. I hope no one takes anything too personally. I most certainly do not harbour any hateful feeling for anyone.
It's like a family bickering at the holidays! May get heated but no lone really wants to hurt anyone!
What's the issue with Shapiro? I personally find him annoying and prudish but what I have seen from him doesn't sound too radical and he uses facts and cite sources? I'm seriously wondering. What's the deal with him? What does he say that you find objectionable?
His opinion doesn't agree with them. That's all.
It's easy to spot this. In the last DW article I linked to, there were things stated by Piers Morgan I thought they might find disagreeable. No one mentioned that though. They just went after me and the source. But, they didn't even read the article.
They can't debate the issues. Just disparage and discredit.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
10 hours ago, RETNAVYTHENMEDIC2RN said:
Would it be more correct to refer to this as an endemic rather than pandemic at this point?
Pan = global
10 hours ago, RETNAVYTHENMEDIC2RN said:
To think we are going to vaccinate our way out is wishful thinking. We need to stop that message and change it to the message of the flu vax, shingles vax etc. We want you vaccinated to protect oneself from the effects of the virus
Please elaborate. You seem to be saying that we shouldn't try to achieve vaccine mediated herd immunity for this virus but we should encourage vaccination like we did to achieve herd immunity to measles, rubella or polio...to protect us from the effects of the viruses. What am I missing?
10 hours ago, RETNAVYTHENMEDIC2RN said:
As an example, saying it is an urgent requirement for a 20 something with no comorbidities to have a booster who has already had two doses of a vaccine.
Is that a example of hysteria or hypocrisy?
Quote
“After critical scientific evaluation, today’s unanimous decision carefully considered the current state of the pandemic, the latest vaccine effectiveness data over time, and review of safety data from people who have already received a COVID-19 primary vaccine series and booster. Booster shots have demonstrated the ability to safely increase people’s protection against infection and severe outcomes and are an important public health tool to strengthen our defenses against the virus as we enter the Winter holidays. Based on the compelling evidence, all adults over 18 should now have equitable access to a COVID-19 booster dose.”
That's the official statement from Dr Walensky. I didn't see anything about urgent or requirement. There was, as I recall, slightly more encouragement and urgency in the recommendations for those with Comorbidities.
10 hours ago, RETNAVYTHENMEDIC2RN said:
What is sad is we get very little of that kind of discussion by the supposed "experts".
The experts do discuss that in their prepared remarks and briefings. The press generally has the experts focusing on other predictions and prognostications. It often appears that the press is seeking to create alarm and confusion about covid rather than disseminate helpful information...when you listen to their questions at press briefings.
I do notice your use of the word "supposed" as if people like Fauci aren't really experts in their professional field. Maybe you should explain who the real experts are if it's not the folks at places like NIH or CDC.
I watch ZDOGG regularly. There's nothing wrong or sinister about those conversations. Those conversations about the risk benefit relationship of vaccines are critical and happen as a matter of the process of developing public health policy. The reality is that some experts are in the position to be the voice and face of public health policy and some are just voices and faces that don't have to be accountable for their thinking about national vaccination strategy in the second year of a pandemic. It's much easier to be a sideline expert.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
1 hour ago, Cclm said:
What's the issue with Shapiro? I personally find him annoying and prudish but what I have seen from him doesn't sound too radical and he uses facts and cite sources? I'm seriously wondering. What's the deal with him? What does he say that you find objectionable?
His media platform is known for inaccuracy, significant right wing bias and intentionally inflammatory language. There are better, more credible sources for accurate and current news and events.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
50 minutes ago, Beerman said:
His opinion doesn't agree with them. That's all.
It's easy to spot this. In the last DW article I linked to, there were things stated by Piers Morgan I thought they might find disagreeable. No one mentioned that though. They just went after me and the source. But, they didn't even read the article.
They can't debate the issues. Just disparage and discredit.
I commented directly about the article. I thought it was funny...him commenting on someone else's ego. That doesn't count? Was I supposed to find some great value in his opinion?
There are much better and more credible sources than that outlet that you frequently cite. Do you really believe that the analysis and comparison of media outlet accuracy is just voodoo or propaganda? Didn't you have to vet resources for veracity, credibility and accuracy when you obtained your nursing degree? A source like Shapiro's would never fly as a source for an academic paper.
It's easy to spot this. In the last DW article I linked to, there were things stated by Piers Morgan I thought they might find disagreeable. No one mentioned that though. They just went after me and the source. But, they didn't even read the article.
They can't debate the issues. Just disparage and discredit.
Discredit the source/person? Well sounds allot like propaganda technique.
I commented directly about the article. I thought it was funny...him commenting on someone else's ego. That doesn't count? Was I supposed to find some great value in his opinion?
There are much better and more credible sources than that outlet that you frequently cite. Do you really believe that the analysis and comparison of media outlet accuracy is just voodoo or propaganda? Didn't you have to vet resources for veracity, credibility and accuracy when you obtained your nursing degree? A source like Shapiro's would never fly as a source for an academic paper.
Well maybe at Trump University.
Which ones do you frequent? I will honestly have a look. Even if I don't agree I will not say anything.
toomuchbaloney
16,029 Posts
I guess you are pretending that insults don't get tossed by you while you are also pretending that you don't regularly cite or quote Shapiro's media platform. It doesn't matter who the author of the article or opinion might be, the content is selected, commissioned and approved by Shapiro. I have read quite a bit of that content exclusively because you linked it for me and others to read.