Flipboard digest landed in my inbox. Top headline:
Well this should be interesting. Click the link:
Oh. I think I know where this is going. Let's read.
"Many Republican lawmakers have criticized governors’ emergency restrictions since the start of the coronavirus outbreak. Now that most legislatures are back in session, a new type of pushback is taking root: misinformation."
Well the issue of the legality of various "emergency restrictions" has actually gone up to the Supreme Court and been won so this isn't misinformation. It's not even unreasonable. Why even include it in the piece?
GOP that's why.
"The steps needed to limit its spread and the vaccines that will pull the nation out of the pandemic."
So the AP gets to decide what "steps are needed"? Who agreed to that?
Last week, YouTube pulled down a video of committee testimony in the Ohio House after a witness inaccurately claimed COVID-19 wasn’t killing children. The platform said the video violated its community standards against the spread of misinformation.Community standards like the Fake Dossier story that it allowed to run rampant on it's platform.
Sure.
But regards to the claim at hand, I doubt anybody actually believes OR has claimed that not a single person under the age of 18 (the definition of a child in the US) has died of COVID. What the data does show is that the mortality for children approaches zero.
Below is a chart of COVID deaths as of Feb 13 2021:
So if we add up the deaths of 14 and below (since I don't want to add in over 24YO), it comes out to 140. Divide that by 460,234 and multiply by 100 you get .03% of deaths are "children". So when someone claims COVID is not killing children is making a statistical claim which is supported by the data. That is NOT misinformation. The AP article is misinformation. They do know we can look these numbers up right?
In Michigan, for example, the House Oversight Committee didn’t include state health officials or other virus experts in a discussion about an extended pause on youth contact sports ordered by Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.
To be frank, given the level of foul up by "state officials" including epic unconstitutional power grabs, I don't want to hear from any of them. Also, that's not misinformation.
It did feature Jayme McElvany, a virus skeptic who also has posted about the QAnon conspiracy and former President Donald Trump’s unfounded claims of election fraud.
Dear AP: This is what is called a straw man argument. Whether the witness believes there is election fraud doesn't make the testimony any more or less correct.
In Tennessee, a Republican lawmaker is pushing legislation that would ban most government agencies from requiring anyone to get COVID-19 vaccines, which isn’t a mandate anywhere. Rep. Bud Hulsey has tried to drum up support downplaying the seriousness of the disease.
While testifying, he ticked off selective statistics that COVID-19 has a lower death rate among children and falsely alleged that the vaccines could cause genetic modifications.
Here the AP is playing the same game that SCOTUS did. Since there is no mandate now, we cannot rule against making them. Then once they are in place, there will be a "well you must follow the law".
We see this bullshit for what it is.
Secondly, we already debunked the AP's claim with the official numbers so the AP is the one dealing in misinformation here.
Thirdly the mRNA "vaccine" does in fact cause genetic modifications in that it causes your body to produce the COVID-19 spike protien. It normally does NOT do that. Hence that is, by definition, a genetic modification. So again the AP is the one who is in fact dealing in misinformation. They assume, correctly, that the vast majority of their readership is ignorant of the relevant science and statistics.
Kumar pointed out that vaccines have saved countless lives throughout the centuries and repeatedly fact-checked Hulsey by emphasizing that the vaccines don’t change a person’s DNA.
Hulsey wasn’t convinced.
Certainly many tested and long proven vaccines have saved lives. The mRNA (RNA is a part of genetics thank you very much) "vaccine" as already stated does make your body do things it would not have done otherwise. Also, the other "vaccines" for COVID have not been tested to the extent that others we are familiar with do. Everyone taking one is currently a test subject. Hopefully it turns out fine. There have been times in history when it has not.
Reinbold has been a vocal critic of Dunleavy issuing disaster declarations while the Legislature wasn’t in session. She has used her committee to amplify voices of those who question the effectiveness of masks and the effects of the government’s emergency response.
All the science on masks were tossed out for political expediency. What passes for mask science may as well be a doll and pins. I've already posted on it a number of times. Not doing it again.
In Virginia, Republican Del. Dave LaRock, who attended the Trump rally in Washington, D.C., that preceded the attack on the U.S. Capitol, warned a state House Health committee in late January that COVID-19 vaccines couldn’t be trusted. He said they were especially risky for several communities, including the elderly and people of color.
So finally a piece of actual misinformation. I have seen no particular data that says that "people of color" have more adverse reactions to the various "vaccines" than any "non People of Color" population. Nor have I seen such data for the elderly, though I would suspect that elderly people, particularly those with certain morbidities may not fare as well.
I for one applaud those lawmakers pre-emptively going after mandatory vaccines so that these things can get to court sooner rather than later. They need to include prohibitions on "vaccine passports" and the like, particularly for domestic use. I can understand a country demanding such a thing to enter it's sovereign land like they do for other diseases but domestically? Absolutely not.
Vaccines, if proven long term effectiveness and is one and done (as the J&J one claims to be) should be available to those who want it, no strings attached. For those who do not want it, Ivermectin should be made readily available, even OTC without prescription with clear usage instructions should they so desire. This isn't hard and should be done immediately (the latter part) and all restrictions lifted entirely.