|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 19 2025 20:31 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2025 19:12 Magic Powers wrote:On July 19 2025 19:10 KT_Elwood wrote:On July 19 2025 18:09 Magic Powers wrote:On July 19 2025 17:58 BlackJack wrote:On July 19 2025 16:45 Magic Powers wrote:Too much misinformation here. Let the facts speak for themselves. https://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/tl;dr Gore may or may not have won a full recount. Nobody really knows. Also, he never asked for a full recount, which means he would've lost no matter what. It's also true though that there was major interference from above. Without that interference, there would've been a fair chance that Gore would've won Florida. Well there you go. Even if SCOTUS gave Gore everything he asked for he still would have lost the recount. Their ruling didn't even make a difference. That's why I never argue with KwarK. He doesn't know anywhere near as much as he thinks he does. Never backs up his claims with anything factual. Just doesn't care. Just assumes he's right by default. At least you do factual research, I can admit that despite all our disagreements on the conclusions. If Scotus had allowed a full recount - Gore would have likely won Florida and presidency. A partial recount Bush still won - but the full recount, already green lit by florida supreme court, was stopped dead by Scotus "overruling state law, if they don't like it". The decision was assisted by K. Harris - co chair of Bush campaign in Florida.. and secretary of state in florida. She made arbitrary rules for the post-deadline acceptance of recount results, leading to SCOTUS arguing that state supreme court effectively is writing new legislation by allowing Florida to handle it's own election...through the wrong process. Democracy these days didn't care for the votes, it cared for the result, which was Bush. I posted the factcheck article, which shows that a full recount didn't guarantee a Gore victory in Florida. Different counting methods would lead to different outcomes. You can say that Gore would've had a realistic chance with a full recount, but that's about all. This post supports Kwark's initial interjection that the supreme court ruled according to party lines to secure the outcome they wanted. That is, there is already precedent that the supreme court will intervene in an election to secure a partisan objective.
Sounds like a valid argument. And personally I'd agree.
|
The Bush side argued for the "Equal Protection Clause"
Florida had no state wide standards for counting and recounting, which would violate the equal treatment of voters in a recount.
It was especially the not fully punctured punchcards, that would to an optical scanner or manual counter clearly state the intent of the voter - but didn't to the mechanical counting machine.
This would immediately mean, that the inital count was also in violation of the 14th Ammendment because Florida failed to set up a state-wide standard of ballot counting - as did and do many other states.
Voters throughout the US had an unequal chance of their ballot going to be invalidated by machine error.
But since this wasn't the question asked, the court was free to overlook the implication.
Supremecourt US ruled, that Florida SC can't make new rules in this situation by moving deadlines and ask for a manual recount.
This would have been the legislator's job, not the SSC.
Recounting also must be stopped, since it would not lead to a legal result.. and if the result meant that Gore would have won . would damage the reputation of Bush, who benefited from broken counting machines, and a GOP-Goverment in Florida that didn't do it's job.
|
This is pretty insane: jamanetwork.com
More than half of parents with young children in America will not fully vaccinate their kids. The picture isn't much better for those that are pregnant.
I mean, I know that elections have consequences, but they really shouldn't be this dumb.
|
United States24752 Posts
Probably, some of them would answer differently if polled while visiting the pediatrician and receiving advice on which vaccines to get. Still, it's not a good look.
|
“Do you plan to refuse or choose not to get 1 or more recommended vaccines (including seasonal flu or COVID-19 vaccines) for your child after birth?”
Including the COVID vaccine by name in that survey seems like a pretty big spoiler. What's the uptake for the latest booster globally? 20%? 10%? Which would mean 80-90% of all people are not fully vaccinating themselves. On that scale birthing-people are well above average.
|
The numbers looked shocking but if the questions were worded like this it's way more understandable, even if you exclude COVID. Seasonal vacciness are probably not that popular too.
|
On July 20 2025 05:28 EnDeR_ wrote:This is pretty insane: jamanetwork.comMore than half of parents with young children in America will not fully vaccinate their kids. The picture isn't much better for those that are pregnant. I mean, I know that elections have consequences, but they really shouldn't be this dumb.
The childhood schedule is around 50 shots. Avoiding one is enough to not be "fully vaccinated" even though the same child may be more vaccinated now than someone nearing retirement now ever was. That framing is alarmist (not fully, more than half, esp. when it's almost exactly half and including mere delay). It's the "Refuse all vaccines" group you want to keep an eye on and work out why so many undecided pregnant end up joining that group after giving birth.
|
Norway28736 Posts
50 shots? Why? In Norway I believe that number to be 9 - five of them the first 15 months, then 4 more between age 7 and 15.
|
50 would nominally include all the different doses, spread out for health reasons.
www.cdc.gov Heres the schedule if you're interested.
Digging into the misinformation that is causing parents to endanger their child and the children around them is what should be investigated. The measels outbreaks that have been coming the last couple years should be incentive enough for a PSA campaign to reverse the trend downward for public health.
|
Norway28736 Posts
|
|
|
On July 20 2025 16:33 Magic Powers wrote:It's not 50 unique shots (read: injections). From what I'm reading it's a little over 10 in the first year of life, then a few more injections until 4-6 years old. There are optional injections that may or may not also be recommended. Most of the injections contain several vaccines. "50 shots" is a completely made up claim based on a misunderstanding of how a vaccination program works. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/imz-schedules/child-easyread.htmlhttps://vaxopedia.org/2025/05/01/how-many-vaccine-doses-do-kids-really-get/I won't say getting pricked by a needle is easy for little kids, but it's also not this nightmarish hell of a dystopia that misinformed people are thinking of.
People seem to highly overestimate how bad a small needle prick is. I think it is mostly the parents panicking and the children adapting to their fear.
My memory of vaccines as a child (obviously not a baby, but later on) was basically a small prick, then a band-aid with flowers on it, then i got a lollipop and was happy again.
I also view it as a positive just how many vaccines we have. Each of those is a disease that we do not have to worry about anymore. And the ones we give to babies barely have any relevant side effects, either.
The deal is basically: "One prick with a needle and you don't have to worry about mumps, measles, rotunda ever again" Which is a very good deal.
|
On July 20 2025 17:01 Simberto wrote:People seem to highly overestimate how bad a small needle prick is. I think it is mostly the parents panicking and the children adapting to their fear. My memory of vaccines as a child (obviously not a baby, but later on) was basically a small prick, then a band-aid with flowers on it, then i got a lollipop and was happy again. I also view it as a positive just how many vaccines we have. Each of those is a disease that we do not have to worry about anymore. And the ones we give to babies barely have any relevant side effects, either. The deal is basically: "One prick with a needle and you don't have to worry about mumps, measles, rotunda ever again" Which is a very good deal.
My mom actually came around, too. She grew up with the idea that you put your child together with other children who currently have the measles, which would provide them with immunity. No joke, this is how a lot of people used to do it. But later in life she understood that this was not the right approach and vaccination is always the best option.
The benefits very very clearly outweigh the risks, and doctors are trained to identify cases where they should reduce the vaccine program to a minimum. But the problem is that trust in doctors fell from 71% to a very unreasonable low of 40% since the pandemic. They can't do their job as well as they used to, and people such as oBlade are working on making their job harder.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2821693
|
Yeah I don't do anything to make doctors' jobs harder.
|
On July 20 2025 17:29 oBlade wrote:
Yeah I don't do anything to make doctors' jobs harder.
You just did. Care to admit that "50 shots" was a lie?
|
Norway28736 Posts
Nobody here is questioning vaccines as a concept, but when I Google it, the ai summary says that an American kid might have as many as 27 shots by the time they are 2 years old. In Norway, again, the number is five.
Honestly looking at that schedule, I would end up in the 'refuse some vaccines'-bracket, as I think annual flu shots for kids doesn't make sense. (This opinion being one I have because that seems to be the consensus among Norwegian health professionals,whom I honestly trust more than American ones.)
I am also wondering why we seem to bunch them up more. Could be a cost/efficiency issue, could be a sick leave issue, I never really thought about it, I'm just a bit baffled to learn that American kids get 5x the amount of shots Norwegian kids do.
|
On July 20 2025 17:48 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2025 17:29 oBlade wrote:
Yeah I don't do anything to make doctors' jobs harder. You just did.
What doctor? Where? How? What are you talking about?
On July 20 2025 17:48 Magic Powers wrote:
Care to admit that "50 shots" was a lie?
Vaxopedia linked by Magic Powers that he again posted without reading wrote:
Including yearly flu shots, which accounts for at least 19 of the doses, through age 18 years, kids can get about 56 shots, with protection against 17 different vaccine preventable diseases.
I will use the unambiguous term "doses" instead of "shots" since you thought the number of needles was what's at issue.
The fact that someone's kid gets a delayed hepatitis or HPV vaccine, or doesn't get a flu vaccine, means they are "not fully vaccinated" in that study's parlance. In other words, those who skip, delay, or choose not to get even one dose out of about fifty. (Or in your maximized combination injections case, those who might skip, delay, or not get just one out of 27 total injections.) This is just not important. The issue is the 1% in pregnancy saying they will refuse all vaccines, becoming 8% once they have children as the undecided pregnant group flock to refusing all vaccines.
|
Norway28736 Posts
On July 20 2025 17:48 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2025 17:29 oBlade wrote:
Yeah I don't do anything to make doctors' jobs harder. You just did. Care to admit that "50 shots" was a lie?
You realize that the link you yourself just posted states that including yearly flu shots kids might end up getting 56 shots by the time they are 18 years old?
|
On July 20 2025 18:05 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2025 17:48 Magic Powers wrote:On July 20 2025 17:29 oBlade wrote:
Yeah I don't do anything to make doctors' jobs harder. You just did. What doctor? Where? How? What are you talking about? Show nested quote +On July 20 2025 17:48 Magic Powers wrote:
Care to admit that "50 shots" was a lie? Show nested quote +Vaxopedia linked by Magic Powers that he again posted without reading wrote:
Including yearly flu shots, which accounts for at least 19 of the doses, through age 18 years, kids can get about 56 shots, with protection against 17 different vaccine preventable diseases. I will use the unambiguous term "doses" instead of "shots" since you thought the number of needles was what's at issue. The fact that someone's kid gets a delayed hepatitis or HPV vaccine, or doesn't get a flu vaccine, means they are "not fully vaccinated" in that study's parlance. In other words, those who skip, delay, or choose not to get even one dose out of about fifty. (Or in your maximized combination injections case, those who might skip, delay, or not get just one out of 27 total injections.) This is just not important. The issue is the 1% in pregnancy saying they will refuse all vaccines, becoming 8% once they have children as the undecided pregnant group flock to refusing all vaccines.
Oh no, not 56 total shots over the course of 18 years of someone's life. That's a horribly high average of...
Up to and no more than 3 shots per year.
It's a dystopia.
Now do you care to admit you lied?
|
Vaccines are not uniformly distributed. In general, by the way, you can't assume things are uniformly distributed just because they have an average that you can divide over some interval. You definitely don't get "no more than 3 shots (or unambiguously, "doses") per year," they are skewed heavily towards birth, and then towards before kindergarten. Later you might just be getting the flu shot once a year in high school.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://cdn.jamanetwork.com/ama/content_public/journal/jamanetworkopen/939642/zld250120f1_1751908716.42291.png?Expires=1755718275&Signature=xno4YMw5j11bTbtmVrmm1V7MlM7o2GHGgK1I7FZr6QAnZVGcEYlMzE1sjgN8W8zgm-fbCmyhU8K3gUTIUkV88peibAIZPnQ7RHYWkTSz8ZLvBVBsdIsWLUiougG-LShekkrcLabk3phwKfGmfwP-VC7ze2K~43tzyd2CZ3abYMbKu2eG8vYoNlfU031XSkbYFrDUk3Wrx6~nI8WYh03lFXWetUdcQNRSwJ2zkY9~hI17zoDaNynxCOHwxnpSWifblY6deHYo4K2ou8h341w9YjfRd0BqxOxiG4NsBAKkjLIRgJktC53YwOLKx~AyUB0BmioyefIqxxWk5TLUnL77iQ__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIE5G5CRDK6RD3PGA)
