Biden plans to ask Congress for funding to develop new COVID vaccine, may require shot for all

I was once fired for interviewing for a job for which my boss had interviewed. Obviously he was weak.

 

Boy oh boy the antivaxer are on a roll again.
Catch it and cough your lungs out.

 

Boy oh boy, the government has become addicted to power and control with vaccines.

 

I just caught the flu.
Coughed my lungs out... for about 12 hours.
What's the difference?

 

Quite a bit. Would you like to Google it or for someone to actually do it for you?
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/symptoms/flu-vs-covid19.htm#:~:text=Compared with flu, COVID-19,for longer periods of time.

I'll assume the latter.

 

Such as?

 

Flu vaccines do receive government funding, so this is treating it like the flu, though the price sounds a bit high.

 

They still can, but it's a reasonable hypothesis. The biopweapon thing, however, is not a good hypothesis. Covid, even its worst variant, was nowhere near what a good bioweapon would be.

 

I posted a website link directly after that snippet of a quote - a site going into extensive detail about all the differences and just below this I stated that I had done so. What more help do you require here? If you double right-click your mouse whilst hovering over the link it will open it for you.

 

So, all this speculation about it being a lab leak? This very thorough video details exactly why that is not the case:

From video author
"UPDATE ON THE LAB LEAK: I've had a lot of comments, on this video and others, from people who insist that the lab-leak theory has now been proved, everyone accepts that this was a lab leak, and the case is closed. Their 'sources' are a YouTube video (which I won't advertise), a scientific paper (likewise), and a Senate report. I'll take them in order: First, YouTube videos are not scientific sources -- not even mine. That's why I list my sources in the video description so you can read them and cite those, not my video. You can't claim the Earth is flat just because a YouTube says so. Secondly, the 'scientific paper' that gets cited is not a scientific paper, it's a preprint. I can write a preprint saying the Earth is flat, it doesn't mean the Earth is flat. Thirdly the 'Senate report' (actually an interim minority Senate Committee report) concluded that it was 'likely' the virus came from a lab-leak, but admitted that the source was still unknown. How does that differ from my video, where I said it was possibly a lab leak but the source was unknown? It differs by a few percentage points of probability, so I'm not even going to bother arguing the toss over whether a lab leak is 'probable' or 'possible.' The bottom line is that we still don't know. I am quite happy to wait until we do know. Yes, we may discover one day that it came from a lab. And we may discover that it came from a cave. Or we may never find out. In the meantime, guys, chill out. Take up a hobby."


From video author
"I covered these two issues last year -- that the virus was natural but leaked from a lab, and that the virus was manmade. Since then a flurry of new claims have popped up. Sources are below CORRECTIONS: 1) Although I was correct in saying there is a 99% similarity between humans and chimpanzees, and 96% between SARS-Cov2 and RaTG13, there have been comments in the forum about whether the comparison is appropriate. I'll just sum this up by saying that clearly ape genomes and virus genomes are not comparing like-for-like, the comparison merely highlights the difference that a small genetic difference can make in an organism. The point being made -- which hasn't changed -- is that it would take years to forcibly 'evolve' SARS-Cov2 from RaTG13 in a lab, even if it could be done. 2) One of the posters wrote: "At 6.27 - The paper by Zou et al is describing RmYNO2. This virus does not contain a furin site, but an insertion of amino-acids at the furin site position found in SARS-COV2. The idea is that amino acid insertions can naturally occur and subsequent point mutation could lead to a furin site." 3) @12:54 the wrong images are shown for the sources. The correct sources are listed below under 'SOURCES'"

 

You obviously didn't understand the question.
Try harder.

 

Is this a game? The bit underlined just above contains the "difference" information you require. I've made it a bit bigger so it's easy for you to see. Hope that helps.

 

Government shouldn't be funding vaccines of any sort.

 

Nope.
You talked about catching COVID and coughing your lungs out.
I caught the flu and coughed my lungs out.... for 12 hours
i asked you for the difference.
You have yet to deliver.

 

I don't see why not. Private companies aren't the best for dealing with public health issues, but they do benefit when the government gets it right.

 

Why not? Because health care is not an enumerated power of federal government in the constitution and, therefore, falls to the states according to the 10th amendment.

 

It's open to interpretation due to implied powers by the necessary and proper clause. Public health is much like the ability to make war, it requires a coordinated high level response, not a disorganized variable piecemeal one. Because public health, like the military, is necessary to protect the nation, its promotion by the federal government is implied.

 

I prefer to judge the language of the constitution rather than what some people think it implies or how they interpret it. I assume the founders meant what they said. Their language was certainly clear enough. The purpose of the tenth amendment, obviously, was to prevent federal government from becoming the monstrosity it has become. And it failed.

Its obvious purpose was to serve the states with activities better suited to a centralized source and leave everything else to the states. Military is one of those purposes and is an enumerated power of federal government. Dealing and treating through a state department with other nations is another. And so forth. It would be appropriate for one to imply the military should operate medical services in war time in the theater of battle. Common sense alone makes that necessary. Public health is managed in the states and that puts it closer to the people. It should stay there. Poor implication in my view.

 

Nothing in the Constitution prevents Congress from using its powers of the purse to add funding to healthcare measures.

 

The 10th amendment does.

 

No. It doesn't. Nothing in the 10th amendment says that there can be no spending bills for healthcare.

 

The words say the opposite to me.

 

The Constitution give Congress the power of the purse. The words say you are wrong.

 

Nothing in the constitution gives Congress the power to enact legislation with regard to health care.
Absent that grant of power, Congress can't do it.

 

So what laws can Congress enact?