Twitter Suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene's Account for One Week (cnn.com) 334
Twitter has suspended Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene's account for one week following another violation of the platform's rules, the company said Tuesday. From a report: Greene tweeted on Monday that the Food and Drug Administration "should not approve the covid vaccines." She also claimed the vaccines were "failing" and that they were ineffective at reducing the virus's spread. In response, Twitter labeled the tweet as misleading and prevented Greene from tweeting for one week. The tweet, a company spokesperson said, "was labeled in line with our COVID-19 misleading information policy. The account will be in read-only mode for a week due to repeated violations of the Twitter Rules."
I guarantee (Score:5, Interesting)
That Mrs. Greene herself is vaccinated. When asked, she yells something about HIPAA. Not understanding that HIPAA does not apply to her or anyone outside the medical community.
Re:I guarantee (Score:5, Insightful)
HIPA protects you from revelations of companies you give your medical info to. It does not stop you from blabbering it all over the Galacit Network.
She's either a lying fraud or so ignorant she should be nowhere near an elected position, voting on laws like this.
Or maybe some type of insane, but that doesn't help her case any.
Re:I guarantee (Score:5, Funny)
She's either a lying fraud or so ignorant she should be nowhere near an elected position, voting on laws like this. Or maybe some type of insane,
Yes.
Re: I guarantee (Score:4, Informative)
That's simply not true. People use intonation to suggest whether they mean inclusive/exclusive or. But there is no clear distinction in the word itself.
"Would you like anything else? A refill or dessert?" This statement would generally end with an upwards intonation, letting the listener know it's open ended. They might want both or something else entirely. Perhaps they would just like the check.
"It comes with a side; would you like fries or coleslaw?" This statement might end with a lower intonation, suggesting to the listener they are being presented with an exhaustive list of choices, from which they should choose one.
Re: (Score:3)
reanjr has a point, but in this specific example (I just reread it), it was actually written: " Either X or Y, or Z " So definitely not 3 choices, but 1 or 2 depending on how you read it !!
Re: (Score:2)
Her job is to represent the people of Georgia's 14th District.
If you go to Walker County, Georgia, and talk to the people there, you will learn that she actually represents them well.
Re:I guarantee (Score:5, Interesting)
That Mrs Greene claims she represents the voters who were picked for Georgia's 14th district.
Don't forgot how modern and scientific and hyper-partisan gerrymandering works. There are two sides of it. First is to pick the most reliable voters until you have a safe margin for the district, somewhere around 55%. It doesn't matter what the voters want or believe as long as you can rely on them to vote for your party. It also doesn't matter what lies you have to tell en route to collecting their votes.
Then the second half of gerrymandering is to concentrate the oppositions' voters into the smallest possible number of sacrificial districts. Obvious target is 100%, but there's still too much "mingling" to get there. (Perhaps better to consider them as simultaneous constraints?) In the resulting legislature, you can control a large fraction of the districts even if your party gets a much smaller fraction of the votes cast.
My favorite solution approach was guest voting. That would let you vote in a neighboring district if you believe the winner of your district won't represent you. But now I'm leaning towards a twisted variation of ranked choice voting. How about voting for one candidate in your district and in each of the neighboring districts? The vote counting would involve two phases. In the first phase, the winner of each district would be determined by the voters residing in that district. Then in the second phase, your own representative would be determined by going down your list until you picked a winner. Then for the twisty part: Each representative would have a voting weight in the legislature based on the number of voters who WANT to be represented by that person. (But there would need to be post-runoff, too. Know why?)
Re:I guarantee (Score:5, Informative)
An example is North Carolina:
https://www.newsobserver.com/n... [newsobserver.com]
ahem, you're making an assumption (Score:3)
Huge numbers of Republicans have in recent years left the GOP as a protest against the "Republican establishment". What this means is practical terms is that a large number of voters are out there labelled "independent" or "unaffiliated" who in reality usually vote right-of-center but for various reasons no longer wish to be identified as "Republican". The numbers you cited are not that shocking when you consider that a portion of that "32% unaffiliated" you cited may well be "shy Republicans" and thus your
Re:I guarantee (Score:5, Insightful)
My suggestion would be that there isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution to the challenge.
For national (i.e. Presidential) Elections, the simplest ways to eliminate gerrymandering is to eliminate the Electoral College and to implement a strict one-person-one-vote approach. That would be true democracy at a national level.
To deal with gerrymandering at a state, city, or district level, the solution might be a little bit more difficult because of course our primary goal should be ensuring local representation. For this challenge I would favour the idea of allowing a state, district or city to have as many or few elected representatives as the wished [within reason] but have a national requirement that, across the entire scope of the voting entity (state, district, city, etc.) then the maximum difference between the largest district and the smallest [based on voter count] must be no more than “X%” of the voting population of the smaller district, where “X” is a number less than 5.
This should offer just enough leeway to allow for imperfect district sizes - for example by adjusting a district boundary by a road or a city block, to keep districts approximately the same size - whilst simultaneously preventing the sorts of outrageous abuses we see in some states, where 40-something percent of voters determine 80-something percent of seats [is that one of the Dakotas that has that ratio?]
The problem is that we have one national party that will fight this sort of basic democracy ‘tooth and nail’ because they know that if it were ever to come to pass they would be unlikely to get back in to power.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
There's a district in Texas that was nicknamed "the barbell" because (IIRC) there's a group of Democrats at one end in one county, a long narrow channel across the next county to another cluster of Democrats in the next county over. This was done to break up the Democratic voters in the two counties at the extremities to ensure two seats for Republicans, at the cost of a single district where the outcome wasn't guaranteed. One of the more blatant examples of gerrymandering in recent years.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean to say the whole district is at least as dumb as she is?
No. Of course not. But 74.7% of them are.
Georgia's 14th Congressional District 2020 election [ballotpedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Yet I pity the other quarter...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't laugh too hard, if that whiny asshole becomes president again, Ms. Green will get a cabinet level position. She'll make a perfect head of the Justice Dept., whenever that witless wonder needs some storm troopers, she'll be right there to supply them. And she'll even give good "harrumphs" for Die Fuhrer (his hands are TOO small, hence he doesn't rate a "Der") during meetings at the White House.
Re: (Score:2)
She's either a lying fraud or so ignorant [...]
Either should be grounds for not being elected.
Re: (Score:3)
HIPA protects you from revelations of companies you give your medical info to. It does not stop you from blabbering it all over the Galacit Network.
She's either a lying fraud or so ignorant she should be nowhere near an elected position, voting on laws like this.
I find this to be a really strange argument. Yes people are free to give away copies of their medical records and install Internet webcams in their bathrooms and blog to the world about literally everything they've ever said or done.
Saying you don't want to because privacy and citing well known examples of regulations designed to protect your privacy in the same areas seems perfectly reasonable and rational to me. I don't really understand the problem with that at all.
The fact that HIPPA does not cover wi
Re:I guarantee (Score:5, Insightful)
false pretext.== lying
Re: (Score:3)
People like her succeed because people like you are either not bright enough to recognize the difference between not wanting to answer a question and perpetuating a lie that absolves you of saying so, or not bright enough to recognize that the distinction matters.
Re: (Score:3)
You're downplaying the stupidity either intentionally or because you don't know any better.
She hasn't been saying that HIPPA prevents her from disclosing her vaccination status. She's been saying it's illegal to ask her about it because of HIPPA.
I don't think this is accurate. My understand is Green said the following:
"Your first question is a violation of my HIPAA rights. You see with HIPAA rights we don't have to reveal our medical records and that also involves our vaccine records."
She seems to me to be saying that she doesn't want to reveal the information and it is a violation of her rights to make her.
"We don't have to reveal our medical records" ... note she is not saying "I can't reveal my medical records" or "It is illegal for me
Re: (Score:2)
That Mrs Greene doesn't believe 95% of what she says. But what if she does? That would be really scary.
Good FP. We should start a series of guarantee guesses, but it's going to loop on "I guarantee she's nuts." (When I say "We", in this case it means I lack the wit to think of a good second joke.)
How about a new diagnostic approach? I have here a copy of The Indispensable Calvin and Hobbes by the great Bill Watterson. I propose making suspected lunatics read the comic book on camera. They also have to wea
Re: (Score:2)
That Mrs Greene would frothily spit in the face of any constituent who accused Mrs Greene of causing a spouse (or child or parent) to die of Covid-19.
Re: (Score:2)
That Mrs Greene doesn't believe 95% of what she says. But what if she does? That would be really scary.
Oh she absolutely believes everything she says.
You can tell pretty easily who's a smart grifter and who's just actually that dumb. Ted Cruz is a slimy piece of shit, but he definitely knows what's up, he just doesn't care. MTG is, in fact, as stupid as she seems to be.
Re: (Score:2)
Since so many of her beliefs are contradictory, then she would have to time-share her belief. Time to recap my ontology of lies:
Level 0: Self contradiction. Nothing needs to be checked to know there's a lie. Even logically possible for both sides of the contradiction to be false.
Level 1: Counterfactual. Any fool can check the facts.
Level 2: Partial truth. Entry level of the basic professional liars such as lawyers and politicians.
Level 3: Deframing. Where the great professional liars like Steve Bannon and w
Re: (Score:2)
While I think Greene is a despicable waste of human life. However HIPAA does apply to her, and to others outside the medical community.
One doesn't isn't obligated to share their medical status with the press, even if they are a Representative, a Senator, the President or a Justice. However she doesn't have to keep it private if she chooses to let her medical status be known she can.
Chances are she has the Vaccine, but rather kill everyone because she wants to to be the Roll Model of the Republican the part
Re: (Score:2)
HIPAA has nothing to do with her. People are free to ask and she is free to decline to answer. None of that involves HIPAA.
Re: (Score:2)
HIPAA applies to her in the sense that her nurse or doctor can't reveal any information about her. But anyone can ask her directly and HIPAA has nothing to do with that.
Re: (Score:2)
It is true that she is under no obligation to answer. However, HIPPA does not require that she not be asked, nor that she not answer, and is therefore not applicable to the circumstances described. Since it is not applicable, bringing it up is a red herring.
Re: (Score:2)
The vaccines are very effective at reducing spread, but only if enough people get vaccinated.
Re: I guarantee (Score:2)
Re:Vaccines not effective (Score:5, Informative)
Israel data shows in one of the highest vaccinated countries, the number of vaccinated that are getting sick is equal or worse than the unvaccinated.
Bullshit. [umn.edu] And with that one stupid, easily proven lie, you've invalidated everything in your post.
Re: Vaccines not effective (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, his initial comment about masks being ineffective at stopping aerosols is trivially disproved. There are massive amounts of literature before and after COVID that demonstrated the effectiveness of masks.
But even if you don't believe the literature why is it you imagine that every surgeon for the past 100 years has worn a mask ?
Re: (Score:2)
"they are ineffective at reducing spread (likely generally correct)"
So you think they are placebos? Because if they keep some from catching it, they reduce spread.
Re: (Score:2)
Source needed. Who are "they"? What are you referring to? Don't make bullshit up and expect people to just believe you.
Re: (Score:3)
I know two people in their 20's who have been fully vaccinated and who are currently very sick with covid.
I'm not anti-vax. I am pro-truth.
Vaccinated individuals can and should expect to still get sick.
Vaccinated individuals can and should expect to carry significant viral loads of covid in their nasal passages, which can lead to transfer of covid to uninfected individuals who may then get sick.
It should be noted this is significantly different than our experience with other vaccinations for other diseases
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The big irony here however is that it's mostly their own constituents that natural selection is taking out of the gene pool. So I wonder what's their long term plan here, of course assuming that they're able to see where they're heading.
Re:I guarantee (Score:5, Informative)
Latinx Americans
Please describe Latinos with the term they themselves prefer to be called:
"A 2020 Pew Research Center survey found that about 3% of Latinos use the term [Latinx] (mostly women), and only around 23% have even heard of the term. Of those, 65% said it should not be used to describe their ethnic group.[50]"
I'm not of Spanish descent, but I'm from Latin America. I wouldn't be angry at someone calling me "Latinx", but I'd most definitely roll my eyes and think the person to be a moron.
Re: (Score:3)
Latinx Americans
Please describe Latinos with the term they themselves prefer to be called:
"A 2020 Pew Research Center survey found that about 3% of Latinos use the term [Latinx] (mostly women), and only around 23% have even heard of the term. Of those, 65% said it should not be used to describe their ethnic group.[50]"
I'm not of Spanish descent, but I'm from Latin America. I wouldn't be angry at someone calling me "Latinx", but I'd most definitely roll my eyes and think the person to be a moron.
Please correct me if I'm wrong (Australian who lives in the UK here) but doesn't Latino describe someone who originates from Latin America regardless of their racial origin?
As for Latinx... Yeah, I agree that's a solution desperately searching for a problem that doesn't exist. I've known a few Latinos (self described, Colombians mostly) complain about a few non neural words, mostly Novia/Novio because to them they seemed such loaded words and lamented there wasn't a less powerful term, like the way we us
Given how often she breaks Twitter's rules... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it seems like conservatives always get treated with much more leeway than anyone else by social media
Can you name an elected liberal who has been banned?
Re:Given how often she breaks Twitter's rules... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No.
But then again, I also don'T know an elected liberal that spouts harebrained conspiracy bullshit. I wonder if there's a connection.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you name an elected liberal who has spewed a pile of cuckoo conspiracy theory garbage and mis-information about a global pandemic?
It's because they dominate (Score:2)
They also spend a ton of money on ads themselves. I get way more adds for Prager U and Daily Mail then... well I don't think there is a left wing equivalent to Prager U and I've never seen an ad for Mother Jones in my life.
I can't find the article right now but one of their executives admitted that right wingers doom scroll way more than left wingers. And during the 2016 campaign there was an interview with one of t
Re: (Score:2)
More likely pushed by external agitators, to use a phrase from the 1960s.
What a joke indeed. (Score:2)
I just scrolled through a few dozen screens of #killwhites posts on Twitter. It is 100% posts by alt-righters trying to stir up controversy (and a few posts by others ridiculing them).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It must be really hard to research what you're posting, otherwise you'd know you're full of it.
Re: (Score:2)
- https://www.kxan.com/news/texa... [kxan.com]
- https://slate.com/business/202... [slate.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You sir are living in opposite world.
It's called "Clown World".
Honk Honk
Re: (Score:3)
Come down hard fast and early (Score:2)
This is why the practice of waffling so much early on and letting them slide bites you in the end.
Thanks Slashdot (Score:2)
I had no idea there were idiots in Congress. Thanks, Slashdot, for keeping me up to date on the important news.
Re: (Score:2)
She's a dangerous idiot at that. https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
If she wasn't vaccinated herself she'd be bragging about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually a funny paradox there. She would gladly claim that she hasn't been vaccinated, but she's afraid that someone ELSE will commit a HIPAA violation and reveal her vaccinated status.
Not sure what's she afraid of. Not like she has any sense of shame or any hesitancy about lying. "My own medical records were hacked and faked!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, Rand Paul is certainly in the running for the queen bee of idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
Idiots aren't new in politics. What's rather new is, are populists that make use of idiots to get elected into comfy chairs where they don't really have to do much, since their dupes are already happy that they got elected.
Want proof? What did she promise? Which of these promises did she keep? Which of these promises could she even keep if she wanted?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
as long as you acknowledge that as things are right now, as the extreme is approached, more permissive regulations on speech lead to more deaths.
I do not acknowledge that. The opposite is true. Attempts to silence the anti-vax idiots strengthens the view that there is a conspiracy to silence them.
Rep. Greene will claim "Banned by Twitter" as a badge of honor. The ban will give her greater credibility and a bigger megaphone.
We should fight lies with the truth, rather than with bans and censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
While I agree with you in theory, in practice we've seen repeatedly that the truth isn't as fast as lies are. Greene and her ilk will claim 5 things about COVID/Vaccines that aren't true. While we're debunking numbers 1 and 2, they'll put in 5 more ridiculous lies. We debunk 4 and 5 but now there are 5 new lies that just came in and we haven't even started the second batch of lies. You can attempt to tackle all of the lies (and get fur
Re: (Score:2)
Look, you can have whatever opinion on corporate and government censorship, as long as you acknowledge that as things are right now, as the extreme is approached, more permissive regulations on speech lead to more deaths.
History has established the denial of free speech leads to avoidable suffering and death. The solution to speech you don't support is more speech not using force against those with whom you disagree to shut them up.
As for excessive censorship, yeah that's a problem too. So, draw a line somewhere between "this unrestricted speech causes too many problems" and "this excessive censorship causes too many problems".
Absolutist policies are generally the policies of cowards.
The only cowardice is in shutting people up just because you fear their message and ideology beating yours. You have a voice use it or step aside.
Re: (Score:2)
Better idea (Score:2)
Instead of freezing her Twitter account, just delete her
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of freezing her Twitter account, just delete her
Her or her account?
Re: (Score:2)
All the book learnin' in the world won't grant her an extra brain cell, or some compassion.
Are the vaccines (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By far the majority of infections are amongst the unvaccinated. So... yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Prove that the majority are unvaxxed. Any Source connected to CNN makes you an idiot btw.
Heh. Did I accidently wander into Youtube comments section or something?
We are talking about a communicable virus here so your being intent on honking in the echo tunnel is hurting you, not me.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.npr.org/2021/07/16... [npr.org]
https://www.forbes.com/sites/r... [forbes.com]
https://abcnews.go.com/US/vast... [go.com]
https://www.webmd.com/vaccines... [webmd.com]
https://www.wvtm13.com/article... [wvtm13.com]
Is that good enough?
Re: (Score:2)
No, not those sources! Has to be OAN, Newsmax, or in a real, real pinch Fox News (though they are now run by literal communist marxists, of course).
These conspiratards crack me up, I see them every day because unfortunately they infest and filth up the gun community.
Re: (Score:2)
reducing the virus's spread? Serious question. Would the virus spread any more quickly without the vaccines?
Most likely yes because being vaccinated means if you're exposed your body can combat and suppress the virus more quickly which will (a) help prevent it from multiplying and reducing the changes you will shed / spread the virus to others and (b) help prevent you from becoming seriously ill -- which would also increase the chances of (a) -- and/or dying.
Re: (Score:3)
Twitter? (Score:2)
Yeah, well, you know... (Score:2)
*shrug* (Score:2)
The dying will continue until average intelligence increases sufficiently.
Why are there no mod boxes in this article? (Score:2)
I don't get this behavior ... (Score:3)
According to numerous articles, the *vast* majority of people refusing the get vaccinated and/or wear masks are Conservatives / Republicans and, more specifically, supporters of people like Trump and Greene. By discrediting the vaccines and masks (etc), these politicians are encouraging continued unsafe behavior by their constituents -- the people that vote for them -- with the result being that many of these people get sick and die. They are actively harming / diminishing their own voter base. Even from a purely political standpoint, this seems counter-productive.
In Texas and Florida, COVID cases and hospitalizations are soaring, yet their governors Greg Abbott and Ron DeSantis are still against vaccine and mask mandates and have even issue orders preventing localities from implementing them. As above, the people that vote (or voted) for them get sick and die.
While I understand their arguments about personal responsibility, etc... this is more than that as, in this case, your lack of personal responsibility can affect others -- even others who are vaccinated and take other precautions as no vaccine is 100% effective and current vaccines weren't designed around the new(e)r variants...
Unless... the goal is actually to have your base die off and you then can't get re-elected.
Re:I don't get this behavior ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Elected officials already have government-sponsored taxpayer-financed web sites where they can spout whatever drivel they want. Taylor Green can spout lies all day and night on her official blog, nothing says she has to be able to get on Twitter to do it. If her mental processes are inadequate to formulate a thought more than 280 characters in length that's not a problem, she can crap out her brain droppings all day right here:
https://www.congress.gov/membe... [congress.gov]
Just skip to the end (Score:5, Interesting)
Best case this woman is just a massive attention whore who will keep trying to up the ante so Fox News and OAN keep inviting her on their air. Worst case, she has started believing her own bullshit and will keep trying to up the ante because she thinks she's some kind of savior or messiah, delivering the masses from whatever nonsense her addled mind has cooked up.
Either way, she's going to keep doubling down every time this happens, so let's just save everyone some time and skip to the end where she's booted from the platform for good like Trump and plenty of other conservative assholes who decided that the rules don't apply to them.
This woman might have ... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Nearly everyone hospitalized right now is unvaccinated. What do you gather from that?
https://www.npr.org/2021/07/16... [npr.org]
Re: (Score:2)
" She also claimed the vaccines were "failing" and that they were ineffective at reducing the virus's spread."
isn't technically wrong. Its inflammatory and an exaggeration but Delta is infecting people who are already vaccinated. That's why the masks are coming back out, because the vaccine wasn't enough.
It is wrong. The masks are coming back because not enough people are vaccinated AND the Delta variant is spreading more easily. If we had 95% vaccinated, we wouldn't need masks. COVID-19 vaccines are very effective (although never 100%).
And even if we did, it wouldn't mean vaccines are a failure. Perhaps masks alone wouldn't be enough, but that masks+vaccines could prevent other lockdowns.
It's like saying that the seat belt is a failure because people still die from car accidents. Or that they are a failure
Re: (Score:2)
" She also claimed the vaccines were "failing" and that they were ineffective at reducing the virus's spread."
isn't technically wrong. Its inflammatory and an exaggeration but Delta is infecting people who are already vaccinated. That's why the masks are coming back out, because the vaccine wasn't enough.
It's not technically correct either. The current vaccines weren't designed for (or based on) the Delta variant. Saying it's failing against something it wasn't designed to combat is like saying my Honda Civic fails at being a boat when it sinks in a lake.
In addition, no vaccine is 100% effective, so break-through infections (up to a point) aren't exactly failures.
Re: (Score:2)
If people were vaccinated nobody would give a fuck. It would finally, finally be as you and your ilk like to say, "just like the flu". Some people would get sick, very few would die, life would go on.
It is a literal, provable fact that the vaccine is effective in reducing the virus's spread. So she was banned for that. If she had said, e.g. "The vaccine is not 100% effective in eliminating the virus's spread, derpedy derp derp tee hee" then you'd maybe have a point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't know your ass from your elbow. The vast majority of hospitalizations are unvaccinated now. What do you suppose that means about the vaccine?
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is, the vaccines have proven themselves so effective at their designed purpose that even the anti-vax conspiracy nuts can't ignore that fact - so they have shifted their goalposts. Now it's just a hand-wavey "OMG people can still get infected!", totally ignoring that the being vaccinated means you almost certainly won't get hospitalized - and likely won't even feel all that terrible - even if you do pick up SARS-CoV-2.
The vaccines are doing exactly what they were designed to do, and doing it qui
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's the hospitalization/mortality rates of vaccinated/unvaccinated infected?
Re: (Score:2)
Despite reaching the herd immunity goal of 70% of the population, SARS-CoV-2 is spreading unchecked by the vaccines. 75% of the known new cases are people fully vaccinated. Those are hard facts from the CDC&P. What we have found is that the vaccines are ineffective at stopping the Delta mutation. Further, the transmission rate between individuals vaccinated or not is the same (no statistical difference).
This is a ton of lies. Whoever told this was lying. Find a new source of information or you will continue to be confused about life.
Re: (Score:2)
Well no shit. Trump proved at least 40% of the country are clinical, literal morons and another 8-9% have psychological issues that make "pwning the libs" their #1 priority over literally anything else.
I hate the far left too, but "pwning" them in silly ways is way down at like #25 on my personal list of priorities.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1st Amendment covers the Gov. not making laws to abridge free speech. When private corporations hold folks to the TOS, it's not canceling free speech.
Read more, ya doofus.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course this won't fly. It's like an ER refusing to treat you for your DUI related injury because you had two beers at happy hour then drove home. They can't refuse to treat you. They can charge you for the expenses but they can't turn you away.
Re:Is there no middle ground on this? (Score:4)
Everyone seems so fucking polarized by the politicizing of this issue. Yes, Covid is real, and deadly, but yes the vaccine wasn't thoroughly tested and all side effects were not known.
Nine months ago it hadn't been tested as much as previous products, although it was remarkably well studied for such a short time frame. But by this point, it's been tested way more than any other not-fully-approved medicine ever. So many people have had it that we now get to hear about the parts per million really rare oddball side effects that would have never come to light in a "normal" clinical trial. If you want to look at the emergency authorization as something of a roll of the dice, ok. But it came up roses in the end, so cool. And works remarkably well, even against mutations that have cropped up since. Great! Humanity just got triple lucky. But, as you say, no, we can't be happy about it, because people love being polarized more than they like anything else. Hooray for America.