Coronavirus 12: Don't Abandon Hope

Status
Not open for further replies.
the 1st paragraph:

The court made a ruling about bureaucrats exceeding their authority and the AG reminded them of that ruling...and they're apparently complying.

And you clearly can't read, because I already mentioned that, by also mentioning the Republican Judge (he was elected as a Republican) who ripped up massive sections of Missouri infectious disease law that have been settled laws for ages. And the AG instead of appealing it in court, decided instead to enforce a bonkers ruling.

Nice to see that according to you, stuff like reporting cases is bureaucrats exceeding their authority. Based on the law, they had every right to do everything they were doing. But of course we all know, you were Pro Covid, just the Republicans who you totally don't support.
 
Last edited:
So far omicron variant has 0 reported deaths in the world as of 3 days ago, so that is encouraging. :)

Still 0 omicron deaths a week later.

More and more it is looking like a milder version compared to Delta and the rest.
Should know for sure around new years.
 
And you clearly can't read, because I already mentioned that, by also mentioning the Republican Judge (he was elected as a Republican) who ripped up massive sections of Missouri infectious disease law that have been settled laws for ages. And the AG instead of appealing it in court, decided instead to enforce a bonkers ruling.

Nice to see that according to you, stuff like reporting cases is bureaucrats exceeding their authority. Based on the law, they had every right to do everything they were doing. But of course we all know, you were Pro Covid, just the Republicans who you totally don't support.

Your article doesn't mention the judge's party affiliation but it does say a new law went into effect and the judge's ruling is based on it. The case stemmed from a lawsuit brought by people asking for relief from bureaucrats ordering business and church closures.

Many of the rules Green struck down were already limited this year by passage of a new state law that requires local public health rules to be approved by governing bodies such as county councils.

The judge was interpreting recently passed laws limiting the power of bureaucrats to act without local approval.
 
interpreting the laws is clearly not the role of the government.
I think you're mixing up ‘government’ and ‘executive’. All branches, levels and agencies are part of the government structure. Interpreting the law is the rôle of the judiciary, but it is still a part of the government system.
 
The public service also absolutely needs to interpret law in order to do its job
 
interpreting the laws is clearly not the role of the government.
This would not be the case in the Anglo countries that have common law where precedent and judicial interpretation are a part of the legal system. That being said, some interpretation must happen in order to enforce even codified law.
 
I think you're mixing up ‘government’ and ‘executive’. All branches, levels and agencies are part of the government structure. Interpreting the law is the rôle of the judiciary, but it is still a part of the government system.

Ultimately, the courts interpret the law in practice and are forming precedent, which is also why they should remain independent from government. They also examine whether a law is at odds with other laws or the constitution.
 
https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(21)01338-6
RNA viruses generate defective viral genomes (DVGs) that can interfere with replication of the parental wild-type virus. To examine their therapeutic potential, we created a DVG by deleting the capsid-coding region of poliovirus. Strikingly, intraperitoneal or intranasal administration of this genome, which we termed eTIP1, elicits an antiviral response, inhibits replication, and protects mice from several RNA viruses, including enteroviruses, influenza, and SARS-CoV-2. While eTIP1 replication following intranasal administration is limited to the nasal cavity, its antiviral action extends non-cell-autonomously to the lungs. eTIP1 broad-spectrum antiviral effects are mediated by both local and distal type I interferon responses. Importantly, while a single eTIP1 dose protects animals from SARS-CoV-2 infection, it also stimulates production of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies that afford long-lasting protection from SARS-CoV-2 reinfection. Thus, eTIP1 is a safe and effective broad-spectrum antiviral generating short- and long-term protection against SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory infections in animal models.

Now... who'd have thought that a defective poliovirus could be a tool to fight against the pandemic o_O?
 
It's going to be quite a while before we can say with any degree of confidence if Omicron is milder or not. The UK reported over 1500 Omicron cases today, but there's typically a lag of a couple of weeks between a spike in cases and any effect in the hospitalization and death stats. Better to be cautious and assume it's not milder until we have more information.

Also in the UK, the government has decided to go all in on pushing for a third booster dose for as many as possible in the run up to Christmas. Since the NHS seems to have only been told about this at the same time it was announced to the general public, the booking website for vaccines has been in complete meltdown all day. I suppose it's encouraging that there's a lot of demand for boosters, but I can see it stalling out around the 80-85% mark of the adult population like the second dose did. Looks like around 40% have had a booster so far.
 
Ultimately, the courts interpret the law in practice and are forming precedent, which is also why they should remain independent from government.
Again: courts are part of the government system.
 
"The Oxford study said that there was no evidence yet that the lower level of infection-fighting antibodies against Omicron could lead to higher risk of severe disease, hospitalisation or death in those who have got two doses of approved vaccines." - Reuters

I'd like to know when y'all find out
 
"The Oxford study said that there was no evidence yet that the lower level of infection-fighting antibodies against Omicron could lead to higher risk of severe disease, hospitalisation or death in those who have got two doses of approved vaccines." - Reuters
Given that the keyword here is "yet", you're not going to turn around and accuse the authors of the study of lying if the evidence turns up in the future? Right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom