by Walter Smith

The University of Virginia announced its COVID-19 vaccination mandate May 20. Unless students filed for a medical or religious exemption, they had to be vaccinated this fall. If they failed to comply, they would be subject to weekly testing. No mercy for COVID survivors who had developed natural immunities.

On August 6th UVa proclaimed that due to concerns over the spread of the Delta variant it would be re-instituting a masking requirement for all students. On August 9, the university announced for the first time that students who failed to comply with the vaccine would be “disenrolled.”

By the way, did I mention that UVa sent out its bills July 20 and the last day to arrange the semester payment plan was Aug. 5?

Call me a cynic.

I’ll confess my biases up front. I’m not an “anti-vaxxer.” If people want to get vaccinated, that’s fine by me. I’m an “anti-mandater.” For what it’s worth, my stance is consistent with existing law and the Constitution, in case anybody actually cares about those trifling things. I wrote an article for Bacon’s Rebellion some time ago, and, to date, no one has rebutted any of the problems I denoted then. I will continue to assert that “there is no pandemic exception to the Constitution.”

UVa cajoled many students to comply with its mandate with the promise of being freed from masking and weekly prevalence testing for COVID. Consistent with pre-COVID vaccine legislation applying to Virginia colleges since 1986, the university allowed medical and religious exemptions. However, the COVID exemption forms are markedly different. An entire second page can best be described as a contract of adhesion.

Via the Freedom of Information Act, I asked to see the iterations of those forms to see how they ended up as they did. Surprise, surprise… UVa withheld the documents as attorney-client privilege.

I also asked under FOIA how the mandate complied with Student Health’s policies concerning patient rights, in particular this language from page 2:

You have the right to refuse or give your informed consent before any diagnostic or therapeutic procedure is performed.

UVA’s response?

The Student Health policy you have cited pertained to the rights of students seeking care in the Student Health and Wellness clinic, not to rights of University students generally. There is no conflict between the University’s student vaccination policy and the rights of students as patients at SHW and hence, no record showing that policy you have cited has been “overridden.

Does that seem disingenuous? What if a student schedules his mandatory COVID vaccination at Student Health, and, after the required informed consent process, the student says “no.” Which policy wins?

Let’s move on to the two latest atrocities. On August 6th UVa announced the new masking requirement. The rules do allow an exception when “actively eating.” I look forward to the definition of that – will too many chews be verboten? Bites too small? Too long of a pause between bites? Will we need a doctor’s excuse for slow eaters or for people who really like to masticate?

Now let’s talk about students who had COVID resistance from past infections and saw no need to be vaccinated. How many got the shot anyway — perhaps from a desire not to be masked, or perhaps to avoid being “othered” by the oh-so-tolerant woke mob? Haven’t they been betrayed?

On August 9 Dean Robyn Hadley, VP of student affairs, sent out an email with two new tidbits – parents were required to wear masks for the privilege of sending off their child to the hallowed University. As a parent, I’m done with masks. I’m not sick. The particles of the virus are 20 times smaller than the openings of the average mask. They do not stop viral spread. It is theater. If I’m sick, I’ll stay home. Engaging in performance art is off my list.

But the worst was saved for later in Hadley’s email where a word never seen in prior communications was casually mentioned – “disenrolled.” If you aren’t vaxxed or haven’t agreed to the onerous terms to receive a medical or religious exemption, then you will be removed from enrollment. Who made this unilateral decision? Where’s the due process?

The official Board of Visitors position is that it delegated the decision to President Jim Ryan. Have board members looked at the COVID medical exemption and asked why it differed from the regular medical exemption? How about the religious exemption differences? Does anybody on the Board advocate for students? Does anyone care about the treatment of religious or liberty-loving students?

To ask the question is to answer it.

Walter Smith is an attorney living in the Richmond area.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

78 responses to “UVa’s Bait and Switch”

  1. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    It certainly is your right to get the vaccine and others right to not but it’s also UVAs right to set policies AND change them as circumstances warrant.

    It looks to me that people think they are entitled to do what they want but consequences are not fair or legal.

    You don’t like mandates?

    When Virginia tells you that you must have a Drivers license, that’s a mandate and yes, there are consequences if you want to exercise your “rights”. Indeed, you don’t have to have a driver’s license but there ARE consequences of that decision.

    When the US tells you that you must have a passport along with certain shots , you do have a right to refuse to do that but it does have consequences.

    I’m starting to think some folks, some Conservatives don’t really understand rights and consequences.

    It’s sorta like trying to explain the concept to children.

    1. … it’s also UVAs (sic) right to set policies AND change them as circumstances warrant.

      When a governmental entity sets policy it is exercising its power, not its rights.

      Referring to governmental powers as “rights” is misleading. It misrepresents the nature of the relationship between the government and the People.

      1. Personally, I prefer that the government exercises its right (yes, right, not merely power) to tell people in Virginia to drive on the right side of the road and to wear clothes in public. Not to mention, to abide by basic rules of public health.

        1. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          The VA Government doesn’t have the right to do such items. They were entrusted with the power (by the peoples) to enforce the Laws.

        2. All of those things fall under the umbrella of governmental power.

      2. DJRippert Avatar
        DJRippert

        You are correct. Government has no rights, only powers.

        1. No doubt there are governments that impose their mandates as a matter of “might makes right.” Hopefully ours is more a matter of the peoples’ “delegated authority.” But rather than parse the semantics of “rights” versus “powers” should’t we be talking about “authority”? As mentioned above, our government was entrusted with the “power to enforce the Laws.” (We can leave for another day the question ‘what is a Law?’) Without that power, what authority does government have?

          1. From the standpoint of the government’s relationship to the People, power and authority are synonymous.

          2. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            Government has the authority to pass any laws that are in accordance with the constitution. I see no way that an 18 month eviction moratorium declared by the CDC is constitutional.

            Per the Cato Institute ….

            “In early 2020, as part of the first major pandemic stimulus, Congress passed a 120-day eviction moratorium for rental properties receiving federal assistance. After the moratorium expired, President Trump announced that “unlike the Congress, I cannot sit idly and refuse to assist vulnerable Americans in need.” So he ordered his administration to “do all that it can to help vulnerable populations stay in their homes.” Accordingly, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) promulgated an eviction moratorium more restrictive than the one enacted by Congress. Whereas Congress’s moratorium applied only to certain federally backed rental properties, the CDC’s applied to all rental properties nationwide.”

            Yes, it was Trump, Yes, it is unconstitutional.

            “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness …”

            The American Revolution was fought against a government that denied the rights of the governed.

            It’s happening again.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Government has the Constitutional right to take your property. right?

            and Government is the one that also has the Constittuional right to decide what “just compensation” is also, right?

            In fact, Government has the Constitutional right to force you to sell your property to another person or corporation. Right?

            Trying to understand why some are saying it’s not Constitutional.

  2. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    BTW, the booster is approved for those with compromised immune systems and co-morbid conditions, so when the grandkids get out of UVa for Thanksgiving, all y’all Baconites can have them over without their masks.

  3. I will be sipping water while lecturing, thus my mask will be down. Another prof will be instituting the ‘NCAA Coach’s Prerogative’ – her mask will be down only while instructing, which was constantly done during every basketball game last season.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      God, I miss teaching. You can leave it down when blowing smoke.

      1. You’re not allowed to smoke in the building, and I don’t anyway.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          is that a “mandate”?

          1. It’s a law, debated by and passed by our elected representatives and signed by the executive branch.

          2. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            Exactly right. It is a law passed by elected representatives.

            Nobody elected the UVa Board of Visitors or the administration of UVa. Therefore, they cannot be voted out of office.

            Why do so-called progressives find democracy so hard to understand?

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            The “law” says they have the legal right to do what they are doing. What is it about the Law you refuse to believe or acknowledge?

          4. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            You have no idea if the law allows for mandatory vaccinations of students. No idea. We won’t know until a case makes it to the US Supreme Court.

            Until that happens unelected “managers” should avoid making any decisions which are potentially unconstitutional. If they were anything but asshats they would ask the legislature to pass a law granting that authority.

            The members of the UVa Board of Visitors have one thing in common – they are massive donors to Virginia politicians.

            How corrupt is that?

            I’d love to see any politicians in Virginia call that selection process into question.

            I have proposed that every public college and university have one board member who is an elected legislator but that kind of accountability is far beyond what The Imperial Clown Show in Richmond is willing to accept.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            These days , lawsuits fly within hours of an action so why not this?

            I believe it’s because the would-be folks KNOW they’d lose in court and so it’s better to just make the argument ….and not have that argument taken away.

            The law is going to allow schools to make rules with regard to safety and health.

            They already do for other things.

          6. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            Ask the suddenly unemployed people at Arthur Andersen about the speed of justice.

            Ask Bob McDonnell.

            Take the eviction moratorium.

            The original moratorium survived until July 31 only because Justice Kavanaugh thought a premature death for the policy would not “allow for additional and more orderly distribution of the congressionally appropriated rental assistance funds.” He wrote that the only way a moratorium could pass muster thereafter was if there were “clear and specific congressional authorization (via new legislation).”

            While the decision was delayed it was found unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.

            So, what did Slow Joe and Democrats do?

            Instituted another eviction moratorium that varied by region.

            They know it’s unconstitutional.

            They are just playing for time.

            When elected officials start taking illegal actions they stop being elected officials and start being tyrants.

            Go buy a Virginia flag.

            See what it says about tyrants.

          7. vicnicholls Avatar
            vicnicholls

            They want to control others because they’re out of control and touch with reality themselves.

          8. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Stop making sense.

            Usually, not putting oneself out for the sake of your fellow beings is the odds-on tactic to guarantee survival. But with a communicable disease…

          9. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            No, it’s called the Virginia Indoor Clean Air Act and it was passed by the GA.

        2. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Oh, so giving some kid Covid, because you are vaccinated and may be asymptomatic, is okay?

          1. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            Pass a law. Let’s see which members of The Imperial Clown Show in Richmond support this mandate.

          2. Regarding masks in schools, read the North Caorlina and the Ireland study. If you want to mandate masks — mandate the proper masks! Those paper/cloth ones which 99% of the people buy and wear or useless and are only propaganda virtual signalling. Don’t believe me, believe our very own Virginia Mask Expert the Charles P. Lunsford Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Virginia Tech, a renowned expert on virus transmission – Lindsey Marr. She stated: “Get your child a high-performance mask, something like a KN95, or KF94 made to fit kids, or a cloth mask with a filter layer. My kids wear
            tight-fitting cloth masks with a filter layer of surgical mask material or HEPA sandwiched in the middle. Make sure the mask fits well with no gaps around the nose, cheeks, and chin.”

            So, if the government and private entities are going to ‘mandate’ — mandate a useful mask which will make a difference, not the cheap paper/cloth kinds, or a bandana, or a neck gator.

            Science and facts, not feelings and beliefs.

  4. “Let’s move on to the two latest atrocities.” (my emphasis)

    Trying to decide how this ranks in the list of real atrocities committed against human beings, like the Final Solution or Rwandan genocide. Can you help?

    I’m also curious what makes a rule (or mandate) ok vs not ok?

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Whether you agree or not, of course! I think UVA is within its legal rights to require the vaccine to be on campus, perhaps with testing as an option. But I still think he’s right that they waited until people had paid….I also think part of this is the lack of any kind of safe harbor in the law, so all these schools and businesses are taking these actions to create layers of legal defense when sued.

    2. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      Rules and mandates are OK if they are passed in accordance with the US and state constitutions and are in compliance with laws enacted by democratically elected officials.

      Arlington National Cemetery is full of the graves of patriotic Americans who fought for the freedoms enjoyed by Americans and others.

      1. Well, I don’t see any of these rules being struck down in court and, depending which state you are in, elected officials are either in support or against. Here, in VA, they support, so 1+1=2?

        1. DJRippert Avatar
          DJRippert

          The courts intentionally move slowly. We won’t know what mandates are constitutional or unconstitutional for some time.

          Once upon a time George Bush rescinded Arthur Andersen’s right to conduct audits. The US Supreme Court ultimately found that act unconstitutional. By then it was too late. The company was out of business and all the employees were gone.

          Justice delayed is justice denied used to be a saying endorsed by so-called progressives. No more. Now, justice delayed is just fine so long as it supports the autocratic decisions made by petty liberal tyrants.

          https://www.perkinscoie.com/en/news-insights/u-s-supreme-court-reverses-criminal-conviction-of-arthur.html

        2. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          Courts do not intercede unless a Lawsuit is filed. The notion that things are hunky dory just because the Judicial hasn’t weighed in, is bollocks.

          We have a great number of laws on the books that shows that the doctrine of Presumption of Constitutional should no longer be considered. As it was based on the idea that Laws were reviewed by legal minds before they were enacted and therefore passed muster.

          1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            So, if not the courts, who gets to decide if a law is unconstitutional and thus should not be obeyed?

          2. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            “Dick Hall-Sizemore 2 minutes ago
            So, if not the courts, who gets to decide if a law is unconstitutional and thus should not be obeyed?”

            Where did I say the courts should not?

            The courts are the avenue for review, however the notion that merely because the Legislature passes something therefore it’s Constitutional should be in question.

            We’ve see examples where an AG didn’t like a States Law and therefore didn’t argue in front of the court.

  5. Rob Austin Avatar
    Rob Austin

    The BoV chickens out again. Giving Ryan “discretion” to do anything further ensures UVa’s descent into re-education camp status.

  6. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    As I recall, I rebutted the assertions of Mr. Smith. Simply put, no Constitutional right is absolute. The courts have upheld vaccination requirements. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/current-constitutional-issues-related-to-vaccine-mandates

    1. walter smith Avatar
      walter smith

      No. You cited one court case. And lower courts do get it wrong. So do federal agencies. And it amazes me you would be in favor of such governmental over-reach. This type of thing led to Buck v Bell… I guess you now approve?
      You cannot square 50 years of abortion jurisprudence with this. The case used is from 1905 and did lead to Buck v Bell, which is now looked upon with horror.
      All prior vaccination statutes had exceptions for religious and medical. Not exceptions with a contract of adhesion. No one has tested the vaccine statutes on personal liberty/medical privacy grounds because MOST PEOPLE get vaccinated for the required vaccines. However, you could argue that the vaccine statutes discriminate against the irreligious on medical privacy grounds and they need an exemption on other grounds, and I think it would win. My body, my choice.

      1. DJRippert Avatar
        DJRippert

        But, but, but … follow the science.

        The scientific process for vaccines holds that EUA vaccines are not proven effective, safe and necessary. That process was defined by government scientists.

        Yet somehow “follow the science” doesn’t count when the scientific approval process conflicts with liberal dogma.

        Just like “My body, my choice” doesn’t count if it conflicts with liberal dogma.

        Why doesn’t the FDA just approve the damn vaccine?

        Because it hasn’t been SCIENTIFICALLY proven effective, safe and necessary.

        Liberals just can’t accept their own logic.

        1. Also DJR, please explain the science of how C-19 does not leave nor enter one’s body while eating and drinking? I still can’t find that study!

        2. walter smith Avatar
          walter smith

          But, let’s go to the next point. Suppose the Covid vaxes do get FDA approval. And suppose the VA legislature (those noble creatures!) amend 23.1-800 to require Covid vax. THEN, there should still be exceptions for medical and religious (this was under the crazy concept of natural liberty). And, I would argue still, based on medical privacy laws and personal autonomy, that a challenge on those grounds would have to be upheld (or it could lead to a death blow for abortion). Pick your poison Libs…

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            I think there can and should be but there are also consequences for that. right?

            I’m not sure I see any real connection between this and abortion. There have been a LOT of new state-based laws and SCOTUS challenges on abortion. Have any of them drawn a connection to this issue?

          2. I’m not a lib, but I’ll respond anyway.

            I’m just happy to see you finally rip the cover off the EUA as a front line rationale for all of this and get to the heart of the matter, which is that it’s personal autonomy. (HIPAA doesn’t apply. That only concerns “covered entities” which aren’t involved here.)

            We’ll never solve the issue of drawing the line where your personal autonomy crosses over the line of societal benefit. That line is different for everyone. That’s the reason for rules and laws, like them or not. But at least that can be the point of agreeing to disagree.

          3. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            A simple question …

            Should the FAA (or any other government entity) mandate vaccinations for front line airline employees?

            The FAA mandates that I wear a mask in airports and while on airplanes.

            Why shouldn’t the Biden Administration mandate vaccinations for front line airline employees?

            Could it be that Biden and Pelosi don’t want to upset the airline employee unions?

          4. For some reason I can’t tell from the arrow next to your name, if that is a reply to me or to another commenter.

            If the question is about inconsistency then I agree it is inconsistent.

            I travel for work a lot so my quick response is yes. My default in this environment is to overdo it to get to the otherside faster.

        3. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          The basic fact is that the GOVT – CAN mandate vaccinations and also they CAN change their own rules for determining EUA if they want and the science supports it.

          You guys keep falling back on the EUA but the current vaccines really do meet most all the safety and efficacy standards and approval is not at risk – it’s just a formality.

          then what will you say if they approve it?

          1. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            ” … it’s just a formality.”

            I love it.

            The scientific process for vaccine approval is a formality when it conflicts with liberal dogma.

            However, if a scientific process is in accordance with liberal dogma we all should “follow the science”.

      2. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        What the Supreme Court Has Said About Mandating Vaccines for School: Jacobson v. Massachusetts
        March 5, 2019 Rene F. Najera
        State and local governments in the United States have mandated immunizations as a prerequisite for attending public schools for quite some time. The Supreme Court has heard several challenges to these mandates and has consistently ruled the mandates to be constitutional. In this blog post, Dorit Reiss, PhD, discusses the Jacobson v. Massachusetts case from 1905 in which the Court upheld the authority of state governments to enforce laws that require their citizens to be immunized.

        https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/blog/jacobson-v-massachusetts-reiss

  7. walter smith Avatar
    walter smith

    It amazes me how little tolerance the supposedly tolerant liberals have for people who disagree with them…
    Maybe the University of Virginia belongs to people from the left and the right…
    Maybe UVA is supposed to be a place of true intellectual inquiry and different ways of thinking…
    Maybe you shouldn’t be expected to transfer over disagreeing with being ordered to be injected with an experimental vaccine that you most likely don’t need (anybody under 30 who is not morbidly obese, asthmatic, etc)…

    It also amazes me how the leftists become all law and order when people don’t do what they think is best…
    Those uppity blacks at the Woolworth lunch counter! Rosa Parks! Arrest them! But BLM/Antifa/statue topplers and sanctuary cities and transporting illegals with Covid all over the US…no problem!

    Liberals do have standards! They just change them daily like underwear…(And I may be giving them too much hygienic credit!)…

  8. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    Ok, “you’re a cynic.” Me too. I find it flows directly from close observation of how people behave….Do love the part about securing payment before they dropped all the other shoes…no way that was a coincidence.

    1. Matt Adams Avatar
      Matt Adams

      On that same vein, when I was a freshman at a state school in PA. They over-enrolled freshman and placed 3 students in two person dorms. Some students opted to disenroll, however the University retained the money from the state and I would presume from the student. So no, no coincidence at all.

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Oh, phew! I thought he said, “scenic”.

  9. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    Liberals love to play the “power game”. According to progressives society is stacked against the poor, the powerless and minorities.

    Yet here we are. A group of overfed, overpaid and underloved clowns who rose to prominence by making political donations called the UVa Board of Visitors have empowered a clod to mandate vaccines for generally powerless students who have no realistic way to transfer to another institution without losing a year.

    Meanwhile, the overpowered airline employees’ unions have apparently convinced Southwest, Delta and American airlines that vaccine mandates are inappropriate for airline employees.

    Have any of you progressives ever flown on an airplane?

    There is no social distancing.

    If any group of people ever needed a vax mandate it’s airline employees.

    Yet our libtwit government is only too happy to enforce vax mandates against powerless students while accepting a “no mandate policy” with regard to powerful airline employee unions.

    Meanwhile, the senile joker we call “President” sits in the White House wondering what day it is while the chaos unfolds.

    Remember when Trump was pilloried by the left for his lack of action on COVID? Where is the criticism of Slow Joe?

    https://thehill.com/policy/transportation/aviation/567308-southwest-american-delta-break-with-united-over-vaccine

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      The vaccination mandate was announced on May 20. That left plenty of time to transfer.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        geeze… what a buzzkiller for the Conservative Catnip that drapes these pages!

      2. DJRippert Avatar
        DJRippert

        Just because I like proving liberals wrong I looked up the transfer application deadline for Boise State. It is May 1.

        1. Brian Leeper Avatar
          Brian Leeper

          No fair! That’s outside of Virginia, and therefore doesn’t count!

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            if it involves liberals, it sure does in DJ’s book!

          2. Brian Leeper Avatar
            Brian Leeper

            I was referring to the tendency among some to think that the world outside of Virginia isn’t relevant.

          3. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            I got that. Larry didn’t. No surprise. I intentionally went to a university in a conservative state. That excluded anything in Virginia.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Oh I very much do. It’s just that I have this thing about all the facts..

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            No matter, now DJ will just ignore that…

  10. walter smith Avatar
    walter smith

    I would like to suggest a simple thought experiment…
    It is Summer of 2019. Although OrangeManBad is still President, no one has muttered Covid-19 and our Republic is sort of safe due to the RESITANCE! First time enrollees are filling out the health forms required by VA statute and this is the operative language –
    B. Prior to enrollment for the first time in any baccalaureate public institution of higher education, each student shall be immunized by vaccine against diphtheria, tetanus, poliomyelitis, measles (rubeola), German measles (rubella), and mumps according to the guidelines of the American College Health Association.

    C. Prior to enrollment for the first time in any baccalaureate public institution of higher education, each full-time student shall be vaccinated against meningococcal disease and hepatitis B unless the student or, if the student is a minor, the student’s parent or legal guardian signs a written waiver stating that he has received and reviewed detailed information on the risks associated with meningococcal disease and hepatitis B and the availability and effectiveness of any vaccine and has chosen not to be or not to have the student vaccinated.

    All of these vaccines are FDA approved. Some of the vaxes are for highly contagious diseases. And yet… students could get exemptions for medical or religious reasons on a simple name it and claim it basis…SINCE 1986!

    How did the world not end? OMG! OMG! OMG! Such risk!

    The problem with all of the “experts” here is THEY DON’T KNOW. They suspect, but have been wrong, very wrong. The lockdowns will be shown to be a huge mistake – way more costs than benefits.

    Meanwhile, silly old me, just looking at history, looking at the history of epidemics and viruses knows a few things – the human race has survived, we have never eradicated a virus, the new viruses generally take 2 years to run through a population, we have the best medical system in the world.
    So, I can be wary of this new virus, but did I need to live in fear of it? No. I think many people have been unreasonably scared. If it happens to you, deal with it. And here we have the government in the way…AGAIN! The only way you get EUA is if there is no other effective remedy. HCQ and Ivermectin protocols as therapeutics are highly effective and will generally prevent the virus getting anybody to hospitalization/ventilator stage.
    Now I’ll add my Christian perspective to this – viruses mutate and become more transmissible and less lethal. That is the history of viruses to date and I know no reason to suspect this virus would behave differently. We have already taken Covid’s best, most lethal shot. Is it POSSIBLE that the more transmissible, less lethal virus mutations is a way to spread natural, herd immunity by letting people get this smaller dose? You know, sort of like the way real vaccines work? How did the human race survive prior to vaccines? One could almost think something like this was designed…

    1. Walter, I agree with a lot of your points, but I’m not sure I’m buying the “Look at history, we’re still here, aren’t we?” logic. There have been some terrible plagues. Recall the Black Death? It periodically swept through Europe, wiping out 20% to 30% of the population each time. And how about smallpox? Bad if you lived in Eurasia — even worse if you were an indigenous American. 90% mortality. Plagues can be devastating. I don’t find it much comfort that history shows that at least 10% of us will survive the worst nature can throw at us!

      We have to judge each plague on its own unique attributes.

      1. walter smith Avatar
        walter smith

        Agree, but…
        We now know how the virus acts and who it affects.
        So, I was actually OK with 2 weeks to flatten the curve at the beginning…
        But an 18 month “emergency?”
        I also suspect part of Fauci at the beginning was he did fear this would be bad because he knew he funded gain of function research, but I’m a cynic!
        So I question the whole gain of function premise…and even more so when you do it with other countries. I don’t trust it in MY country!
        So not saying let it slide…saying don’t live in fear.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      The question is how do you know this? What academic background, what actual experience, do you have in these areas that makes you more of an expert than those who have years of academic and career experience?

      Do you really think that we don’t need smallpox or polio shots, that it would al work out without them?

      How do you KNOW that replicated variants are always less dangerous and virulent?

      You guys amaze me. You know nothing, but you think you know a lot.

      I would no more trust you than the man in the moon on these issues and yes, I’d trust experts in the field even if they don’t get it 100% all the time.

      You guys seem to think if science is not 100% that you can do better, even though you really are largely ignorant of the science.

      Is this really the way Conservatives really think?

      1. walter smith Avatar
        walter smith

        Do you KNOW that the experts are right? Do you ever apply common sense? Or are you content to be a useful idiot? Larry – science is a process based on skepticism and requiring people to prove it. The experts haven’t proved it. In fact, they have done great harm to public trust because they don’t have the humility to admit what they don’t know.

        1. walter smith Avatar
          walter smith

          Larry – to clarify – not engaging in ad hominem – using the historical connotation of “useful idiot” – I would suggest some scientific skepticism of what the “experts” say, particularly given the track record…

          https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/vaccines-konstantin-kisin

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Walter, I appreciate it. My view is that people who are academically trained and have years of experience in the field know more than folks who don’t.

            And I don’t believe just one of them.

            I don’t focus on just some individuals or personalities to trust or not.

            One study does not science make.

            It has to be published and how the study was set up and conducted needs to be shared with others who will then try to replicate it and from that, decide on much of it they agree with or not.

            I see none of this from the critics.

            They don’t have the academic background, the career in actually conducting studies producing results , having others replicate, etc – basically nothing but an opinion based on something they have read on seen.

            It’s ludicrous.

            Something like COVID is new and it takes awhile for the scientific process to do the actual research, find answers and come to conclusions.

            It’s messy and anything but perfect but it’s way that science really works

            I’ll take it any day over pretenders and posers.

  11. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    ” Justice Amy Coney Barrett on Thursday rejected a plea from a group of Indiana University students to stop the university’s requirement that all students be vaccinated against the coronavirus.

    Barrett, who received the request because she is the Supreme Court justice tasked with emergency petitions from that region of the country, did not give a reason. It appears she made the decision on her own, as she did not mention referring the matter to the other justices.

    It was the first case about vaccination requirements to reach the Supreme Court. Both a federal district judge and a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit had previously rejected the request that the university’s requirement be put on hold while the issue was further litigated.”

    1. Publius Avatar

      So let’s get this straight. Barrett refused to grant an injunction, which is hard to get. Generally, the Courts are ducking a decision here by citing the available exemptions, which I don’t think they are giving due weight to how disparate they are, but are citing as why irreparable harm will not occur. When this does finally get heard on the merits, if it ever does, it will have to fall or else Roe will be at risk. But the Supremes might still dodge a decision saying it is moot…We’ll see.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        SCOTUS may be waiting for the “right” case but Barrett didn’t even see fit to have the entire SCOTUS weigh in and I don’t think she would have done that if others on the court said they wanted to rule.

        Injunctions are often granted if the judge thinks the petitioners are likely to win and in turn don’t grant if they feel they are not likely to prevail.

        I would doubt seriously if SCOTUS would rule in such a way that the Country was denied the ability to respond to a raging pandemic especially if it could affect natural security.

        If that were true, it would embolden our adversaries to develop contagious diseases to plant and spread in this country.

        no?

        1. Publius Avatar

          No. To grant an injunction, you allege irreparable harm. The exemptions provide an outlet, so the Courts say there isn’t irreparable harm. The likelihood of success on the merits has not been reached.
          Unfortunately for people opposed to the mandate, Trump’s judges aren’t political hacktivists….
          But, in a sane world, we would have political leaders who would lead and not hide behind a bureaucracy or a bad AG opinion and would insist on legislation. But, hey, we haven’t had a budget in forever and can just print money, what’s the problem?

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Denial of your fundamental Constitutional rights is not “irreparable harm” ? geeze…

          2. Publius Avatar

            According to ACB, it isn’t.
            This is pretty common in the judicial restraint arena. Where the bigger failure is is legislatively. The CDC and the FDA and the emergency powers of the Governors do not have unchecked power…and if we don’t check it, the genie will never be put pack in the bottle.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            The trick is to NOT have the Judiciary makeup rules/law that are not actually in the Constitution, though and really is the province of legislation by elected representatives.

            There is no way, there should be an absolute 100% ban on mandates based on protection of public health and welfare of citizens IMHO.

          4. Publius Avatar

            And you are entitled to your opinion. But I would say this has eerie parallels to Buck v Bell and forced sterilizations. Will couples need a certificate to have a baby? Will a mother be forced to abort a Down’s baby? Where it’s heading… Fat people cost us a lot of money in the health system… 15 calories a day per pound for how many pounds you should be, peasant!

Leave a Reply