Children don't have the same standing with the constitution as adults. I don't remember the exact term but children have their rights restricted all the time. They do not have free speech in school for instance. They certainly have limits to their second amendment freedoms. So I don't think this bill will have constitutional issues. Personally, I'm all for a federal restriction on addictive social media for kids.
Spirituality (and religion) are personal choice.
There is no "religious education" for children, only indoctrination.
It may be legal, but it is in no way moral.
These all look amazing. Interesting to see them drop the popular 15.4" size. All my accessories that are sized for that form factor will have to be purchased again. I'm thinking especially of the vertical dock I have.
It's grossly unfair to say that someone who doesn't want a Covid vaccine is antivaxx. There are a plenty of legitimate reasons one might not get the covid vaccine.
There is a difference between being anti-vaccine, meaning that you are against all vaccines, and being hesitant to receive a specific vaccine. Most people I know who are still waiting to receive the covid vaccine are all caught up on the typical vaccines and may even get the flu shot every year.
Most people in the antivaxx community are willing to take some vaccines. Being 100% anti vaccination was never the core issue.
Random article on the subject: You can essentially break anti-vaxxers into two groups, says Tim Caulfield, the Canada Research Chair in health law and policy at the University of Alberta. The first consists of full-on disbelievers who make up somewhere between two and five per cent of the population, depending on which study you look at. Their minds won’t be changed. The second group — somewhere between 20 and 30 per cent of Canadians — is for what some now call the vaccine-hesitant. They may get some of the required vaccinations for their children, but not all of them.https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/who-are-the-anti-vaxxer...
"Oh I'm totally for vaccine, but not the one that went through full trials and helps stopping the actual pandemic going on right now, nope, that one is a no go better people keep dying when we could stop it"
The normal sequence of tests aren’t about human safety for the general public their about human safety of the test subjects in the clinical trials including primates. So they did pre clinical trials like this one, but they did fast track to primate testing. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.08.280818v1
At this point we have more data on COVID vaccinations than most prescription medications as their so widespread.
Heart inflammation. Weighing of peronal risk factors, e.g., age or lack of comorbitities. Weighing social factors, e.g., prevalence of breakthrough infections and concomittant low value to 'health of society' from inconvenience of one or two injections that are required to achieve official vaccination.
I'm not prejudging how an individual's assessment of risks and benefits might shake out and I personally feel it's not a huge deal either way. That said, I very greatly disagree with the sense of entitlement baked into the comment I'm responding to, e.g., that I and all others should collectively drop everything and abandon all personal preferences and goals to focus single-mindedly on defeating the virus. The flaws with the majoritiarian premise are at least three-fold. 1. We most certainly will not defeat the virus in any way-- history teaches that we will at best coexist with it. 2. The viral risks are not infinite and easily may be overshadowed in many cases by life circumstances-- I am not required to quit my life and livelihood to serve majority sensibilites or lack thereof. 3. Before this pandemic I had some sense that my choices are personal, sometimes private, and always mine-- the pandemic has made me realize those sentiments are not universal, but have not persuaded me I'm wrong.
> that I and all others should collectively drop everything and abandon all personal preferences and goals to focus single-mindedly on defeating the virus
This is SO dramatic! It's just a vaccine! It's done in less than an hour! Wearing a mask is not fucking hard! What happened to American tenacity and strength in the face of adversity? How do these things even make your life harder?
We beat small pox, polio and other terrible diseases with the all in approach. Please take the shot and convince everyone you know to do so as well. If we eradicate this... it's gone.
This is an emotional appeal that has been used to justify countless atrocities in countless civilizations. A rational society shouldn't be thinking in such blanket and qualitative ways
Actions are bad because of their nature, not because of how they are reasoned for. And any given reason can be used to justify bad or good actions; that doesn't taint the reasoning.
That is to say, judging an action solely by its reason is intellectually lazy; Especially because you can just interrogate the action and its effects themselves.
To make it clear: Saying getting vaccinated is dangerous because the 'greater good' is also used to justify atrocities seems like something profound, but it actually lacks any insight whatsoever.
In this case though the greater good is very easily expressed in a quantitative way: more vaccinated people means less people dead and incapacitated by the virus.
It's not an emotional appeal though. It's pretty clear that a high vaccination rate will be beneficial to the overall health and prosperity of a population. I don't care about people getting vaccinated because it makes me feel warm and fuzzy, I care about them getting vaccinated so that we can ramp down restrictions and get closer to normality.
> a high vaccination rate will be beneficial to the overall health and prosperity of a population.
Then say that, don't say "the greater good". The "greater good" means very different things to Nazis or Islamist terrorists. We should encourage people to say what they mean, not vague and meaningless phrases like "greater good".
What kind of silly response is this? Of course a rational society would look at the impact of individual decisions extrapolated over the collective.
If nobody got the covid vaccine, would things be better or worse across our society than they are now? Simple question, simple answer, but something you are ignoring and thus you aren't rational.
There is no blanket logic here. This is not an atrocity. This is an instance of global pandemic, literally a 100-year natural disaster affecting all of humanity. It's not some slippery slope about your "freedom", stop trying to make it into one.
>Two doses of either vaccine still provided at least the same level of protection as having had COVID-19 before through natural infection; people who had been vaccinated after already being infected with COVID-19 had even more protection than vaccinated individuals who had not had COVID-19 before. [my emphasis added]
COVID vaccines aren't eligible for the VICP and have a laundry list of horrific side-effects, that's plenty of reason for any reasonable person.
> It's just selfishness and not caring about the greater good and health of society, your neighbours, colleagues, friends or family.
You can say the same about fat people, smokers, drinkers, and all other people who take unnecessary risks of any kind. They're all burdens on the healthcare system that reduce access and affordability for everyone else.
> You can say the same about fat people, smokers, drinkers, and all other people who take unnecessary risks of any kind. They're all burdens on the healthcare system that reduce access and affordability for everyone else.
They cannot kill someone by walking by them in a grocery store.
1. ~30 million confirmed (worldometer) recovered from covid. Some official estimates put that number closer to 100 million. Those individuals already have covid immunity and do not need to take a vaccine. All vaccines carry some risk, even if low. There is no reason for someone who already has covid immunity to take on the risk of a vaccine.
Friend had Covid last year, wasn't too bad. Caught it again in Jan (before the chance to get vaccinated) and it hit her very hard. She's now suffering from a pretty miserable long Covid.
Except protection from natural immunity is weaker than the vaccines and more susceptible to variants, thus significantly increasing the likelihood of reinfection and passing to others. I can appreciate the debate, perhaps a test to show natural immunity would be sufficient, but there's certainly a case to be made beyond "pure theater."
>Natural immunity is ... more susceptible to variants
Do you have a source for this? I have looked it up a few times and all the information I saw indicated that natural immunity should transfer to variants favorably, because natural immunity targets several parts of the virus whereas the current vaccine only targets a single region.
>natural immunity is weaker
This is true on the margin, but it is still quite good. Vaccination breakthrough cases are very rare at <0.1% of cases[1]. The CDC reports that natural immunity breakthrough risk is 2.34 times higher than vaccination[2], but you have to remember that the base multiplier is still incredibly low. By this logic, cases from natural immunity are at worst 0.23% of all cases!
I think it is very misleading to be grouping those with natural immunity with the unvaccinated when it is so close to vaccination in efficacy, and drastically different than those with no immunity.
There's no scientific evidence anyone has a "natural immunity" to SARS-CoV-2, and even the immunity granted to those who are vaccinated is largely contested by the mutations known as the delta and lambda variants.
The situation is not that obvious, and thus different places evaluate it differently. (E.g. here in Germany the protocol is one vaccine dose a few months after the infection, based on results that this has similar effects as the second dose of a two-dose regimen)
Why would we need to include an exemption for natural immunity?
Doing so would add additional work to the _already overworked_ health agencies, labs, etc. You'd need to test people to ensure that they have an adequate immune response (at least on par with what the vaccines provides). With unlimited resources and total information, then sure, doing either vaccines or natural immunity would work, assuming that the natural immunity is at least on par with the vaccines. However, given that we don't have unlimited resources nor total information, it's much simpler for the health agencies to ask for everyone that doesn't have a medical exemption to get vaccinated.
Azure CLI works great and you can do everything with it. Often times, especially with new features, they go CLI first and then slowly migrate things into the GUI.
On the other hand, Azure GUI is way faster for me to get stuff done in as a casual user, and if they didn't have a GUI I doubt many people would use Azure.
