Keep in mind, these doses or levels are for opioid naiive people. Those who are on chronic opioids or abuse IV opioids, heroin, etc will tolerate much higher levels of opioids without respiratory depression.
A dose that may kill me may as well be water to George Floyd. Not saying this is the case for George Floyd, just using him as an example.
Please understand that most of us in blue states who wear masks in shopping centers, do it because we have to, not because we believe in it. Because we all need groceries, and wearing a mask in a grocery store isn't a hill I desire to die on. I go in, do my business, and rip it off the second I leave. Most others do the same. Leave the big population centers, and you will rarely see masks outdoors, masks in cars, etc. In fact, in restaurants, most don't even bother me when I walk around the place without a mask. But I get it. My governor sends his goons out to these places to monitor mask and social distance violations. A restaurant in my town got their liquor license pulled for this nonsense. So I don't blame them.
It's called the China virus. Really. It's not complicated. Unemployment skyrocketed because of advice from liberals to shut down, and the states that didn't shut down or quickly reopened are doing well. If you don't see that, well, there's not much more to say to you.
BTW, I'm not arguing with you, because looking over your other posts, you're a troll. And a moron. Just want others to see that you're a moron.
Tell that to the unemployed. Therein lies the disconnect. What is good for wall street isn't necessarily good for main street. Trump is the only one who recognized that, and incidentally the only one who was able to provide for both.
No, no we don't. And that's my overriding concern. That's why I'm personally waiting before I decide whether or not to get it. But this drug meets the definition of a vaccine. That doesn't mean it's necessarily safe. We just don't know the long term effects yet.
Just for the record, a vaccine, any vaccine is literally a drug that works to force an immune response. Some are live attenuated viruses, some are inactivated viruses, some are viral proteins. This is the viral proteins, except your own cells make them. Just like if you got the actual virus, except you're not making new viruses, just the spike proteins.
This is actually quite bad. I mean, this is misinformation at its worst. Notice the headline of the notice, "vaccines are thoroughly tested." Not the covid vaccines, just vaccines in general. It's a lie by omission. And the vast majority of people will not notice. And that is of course the idea. The covid vaccines are tested enough to get the emergency use authorization, but it's short term data only.
Notice the next headline: "vaccine side effects are usually mild." Same lie by omission. Not to mention the side effects of this vaccine are not mild, in fact you feel like crap for a day or more, and you may not even be able to work for a day or more. Yes, it goes away, but this isn't just some soreness at the site of injection.
OK, whatever you say. I'll take someone who fights and not one who rolls over. I made that pretty clear. Not interested in another establishment candidate, we have plenty of those. And she hasn't proven that she is willing to fight, much less that she isn't one of them. Take care.
Never said she was a traitor. Disappointment, yes, but she is no traitor. Look, I didn't make the rules. She said she would sign a bill, she got a bill, by all accounts it was a good bill. Perhaps not perfect, but good. She sent it back because in her opinion she would get sued for it. She is plattempting to avoid litigation, proactively planning on losing that litigation on a law that has overwhelming support in her state and her state legislature. And then, and this is what gets to me the most, she sent the bill back to her legislature, effectively vetoing it, but not actually vetoing it. I'm seeing the same deceptive maneuvers that I have come to expect from the establishment. This isn't even about the actual issue. I don't live in her state, this bill or her executive orders have no effect on me. This is a litmus test. Is she MAGA or is she establishment. And this is an establishment move. At least have the stones to veto the bill and clearly spell out why. If it's the fault of the legislature, make them own it. That's what Trump would do. If she's unwilling or unable to fight a friendly legislature, what do you think she'll do if elected president? She is throwing cover on it with her executive orders, but I no longer trust her. And I previously held her in high regard. But I also used to hold Nikki! in high regard as well.
Very well. Here's an article written by someone far more intelligent than me on the subject. It's a very quick read. He shares my thoughts on this. I wrote post before this article was written.
Edit: I never expect to get exactly what I want. That's unrealistic. But I expect someone who claims to sign whatever bill on this topic lands on her desk, to do, you know, that. Not back out because she is afraid of a fight, and throw a few crumbs our way as cover. Sorry, not buying it. Tired of being lied to, told to vote for candidate X because otherwise socialism takes over, only to vote for that candidate and come to realize that they are in the same boat.
She made the issue a big deal for her state. She boldly claimed that she would sign legislation protecting our kids in sports. And when push came to shove, she weaseled out using a non-veto veto and instead gave us 2 executive orders, one of which is utter crap. Legislation is always better than an executive order. Always. She didn't have to do this. Had she not made a big about it in the first place, the only people who would pay attention to her state are people who live there. She made this issue national. And then didn't deliver.
Sure. Executive orders can be reversed very easily. Because they are orders, not laws approved by legislation. The executive order on collegiate sports reads like a suggestion rather than an order. And if these executive orders address deficiencies the legislature proposed with the bill, which was overwhelmingly passed, why not just sign it and add the orders? You can just as easily take an executive order to court, if that's what she is afraid of. It just makes her seem she doesn't want the fight. And when these orders get sued, they'll be removed.
Like I said earlier, she may have her reasons. They may even be good. And perhaps one day she will tell us what they are. But from the 35,000 ft view, this looks like a cop out. If she caved under the pressure of the liberal mob, she isn't MAGA. Sorry. Every candidate has to convince me that he or she deserves my vote. And she has a higher hill to climb given the latest. And why are you so offended that I don't like her? What makes her the best person to carry the torch in your eyes? There are already better candidates out there. No, she's not the worst, but she's far from the best.
So we need to unite behind someone who appears to be weak on the principles that we hold important? Why? Why can't we demand that our elective representatives have our interests in mind? Why do we keep settling for mediocrity, just to get a republican in and watch them screw us over? The battered conservative syndrome is real. If she wants my vote, she has to convince me that she deserves it. Not these half gestures. I need to know that she will risk the wrath of a Washington Post op-ed to stand up for us. If she wants to run on Trump's platform, she needs to start acting like it.
She vetoed a bill that would have become law, and instead signed executive orders that could be easily overturned in the future. I don't pretend to know what she is thinking or why, for all I know she may have a good reason. But for her to veto a bill that is very popular in her state, and pass couple of potentially toothless executive orders is fishy at best.
If she is trying to be MAGA, she is not very convincing. If she isn't willing to stand up and fight for her constituents (vetoed the bill because she was afraid of getting sued, or so she claimed), what makes you think she'll fight for you? Will she risk the wrath of a WaPo op-ed to defend our principles, or will she fold like a wet towel? I'm not confident. She may not yet be Nikki!, but she's getting there.
Don't get me wrong, I'm upset. Very much so. But I have a family that I'm not willing to risk for nothing. I imagine most of us who are upset are in the same boat. So we bend over and take it, and try to live our lives the best we can. I bet if you ask around, you'd be surprised how many people will give you a similar response. Not to mention, we all know that there is a class of people that feds will not touch. We don't belong to that class.
If there is something there, please post it. I am more than happy to discuss. And you teach me something I didn't know, I would actually appreciate it. And I mean actual, verifiable cause and effect data that is above the expected side effect profile and ratios. None of the "if they died with covid, they died if covid" kind of thing that the media manipulation machine was doing a year ago. So if you're going to claim that it they died with the vaccine, they died of the vaccine, it's not going to work. Actual, verifiable vaccine related, significant morbidity or mortality, that is above an beyond what is expected of a new drug or treatment. I'm not going to go out of my way to substantiate your claims. I know that in the short term, the vaccine is safe. You believe the vaccine is dangerous? The onus is on you to prove it.
You never made any coherent point that I could present evidence against. Nothing you said had any relevance to the covid vaccine. Just tangential points. But that was of course the entire purpose of your argument, wasn't it?
Your argument is that this vaccine is bad because some polio vaccine in the 50s had issues. Then your argument that this vaccine isn't a vaccine. Then your argument was that this is some kind of genetic modification. I explained to you that a vaccine made 70 years ago does not prove anything about a vaccine today. This is a fact. I explained in detail how MRNA vaccines work. I explained why this vaccine is a vaccine. I explained why it is not gene therapy or genetic modification. I explained everything to you. YOU chose ignorance. That IS your cross to bear. See, I can do it too. You're free to make whatever choice you want. That is something I maintained throughout. You want me to agree with you, but I can't. You have no understanding of the subject matter and you refuse to learn. Straw man arguments are fallacious and I will not entertain them. You want to show me data that verifiably makes the point that these vaccines are dangerous by linking outcomes to vaccine administration, please do, and we can discuss. But if you're going to present tangential points (70 year old vaccines) and straw man arguments (med Mal, intubation, etc) to discredit the discussion, you'll have to do it with someone else.
And stop with the high and mighty, above it all, religious shtick. It's very transparent what you're trying to do.
Not sure what my cross comment makes me, but whatever. You're using that phrase to make yourself seem pious and above it all, but in reality it makes you seem foolish.
Bringing up prior vaccines does not invidate current ones. That's another straw man argument.
Not understanding how MRNA vaccines work and calling them "false vaccines" only shows your lack of understanding of the subject. They are true vaccines and I've explained why in this very thread. I will not rehash it, you can go back and read it. If you still choose ignorance, that's your decision.
You say you don't want these vaccines to fail yet you and most others here are screaming not to take them because something something Polio vaccines in the 50s, or gene therapy, or mark of the beast, etc. Good luck squaring that circle.
I'm not going to discuss clinical decision making regarding intubation with someone who is not a medical professional, least of all one who knows nothing about the topic at hand. Sorry, no offense. You don't understand anything on this topic. You've never had to make this kind of decision, and be glad.
Throwing the conversation to medical malpractice has nothing to do with the topic at hand. It is a diversion to discredit the original argument by destroying the straw man (med mal). Sorry, not going to work. I expect that stuff from CNN anchors, and it doesn't work for them either.
And perhaps most importantly, I never told anyone to take it. Not once. Everyone should make their own decision. I only provided information. You didn't like it. And what you like or agree with is irrelevant. Don't want it, don't take it. But don't spread BS around to fullfill your own agenda. You're just annoyed that I'm not here to pat you on the back and agree with you.
Did I ever say no to HCQ? If so, please point out where. Did I ever say no to other therapies? Of course not. But it's always better not to get it at all, then get it and bet on a treatment. Yes always. For any serious disease. And covid is a serious disease for a lot of people. The catch is of course the vaccine has to be safe. As of now, it is.
And telling me I'm wrong without actually saying what I'm wrong about, and then pivoting to medical malpractice deaths is a straw man argument, and isn't going to fly with me. This is CNN level stuff.
And cut it out with the cross nonsense. I never told you or anyone to take it.
Because they are (and always have been) the easiest to brainwash.
Alternatively, their lives are so mundane that this gives them the only danger and excitement (as they perceive it anyway) that they will ever experience. It's almost like wearing a mask (and forcing others to) gives their lives meaning and purpose.
The more I think about it, I think it's the latter.