Covid Vaccine thread

[GwynnInTheHall]

I only object to the fact that he'd allow Rush to be played in the courtroom. No one deserves to die with that background; clearly an Eighth Amendment violation.

The Who?

[chancellor]

The Who?

Won't Get Fooled Again, for sure.

[chancellor]

On a different tangent, Jon Stewart's recent COVID origin rant with Colbert is classic. I have no idea if Stewart is fully serious, partly serious, or not at all serious, but just watching Colbert's face change from bemusement to terror to a visage like he's passing a kidney stone is classic.

[Sour Masher]

On a different tangent, Jon Stewart's recent COVID origin rant with Colbert is classic. I have no idea if Stewart is fully serious, partly serious, or not at all serious, but just watching Colbert's face change from bemusement to terror to a visage like he's passing a kidney stone is classic.

There has always been compelling circumstantial evidence, but that is all it is at this point. I continue to withhold judgment and look side-eyed at anyone who seems to be filled with metaphysical certitude on the origin of COVID, in either direction. I hope it is something we find a definitive answer to eventually.

[GwynnInTheHall]

There has always been compelling circumstantial evidence, but that is all it is at this point. I continue to withhold judgment and look side-eyed at anyone who seems to be filled with metaphysical certitude on the origin of COVID, in either direction. I hope it is something we find a definitive answer to eventually.

Neither side has any factual evidence to support their theories. Can we trust those in charge (both in the US and China) to be honest with us in any regard? How much does politics play into finding/revealing the truth?

Bottomline--no matter what is done--will we ever really know what or how this all happened?

Probably not.

[Sour Masher]

Neither side has any factual evidence to support their theories. Can we trust those in charge (both in the US and China) to be honest with us in any regard? How much does politics play into finding/revealing the truth?

Bottomline--no matter what is done--will we ever really know what or how this all happened?

Probably not.

Yeah, too much at stake for their not to be fingers on the scales and obstruction that hinders the quest for truth on this.

[Mithrandir]

No doubt.

Again, Why?

[Ken]

Again, Why?

How many innocent people do we execute already who we had "no doubt" were the killers? Given that number, which is already quite large, imagine the increase if we were to remove due process.

[chancellor]

Neither side has any factual evidence to support their theories.

I disagree. There's now three independent groups that have confirmed from three different areas (Australia, Germany, US) that COVID-19 did not occur naturally. There's supposed to also be a fourth joint Taiwan/Japan study, but I can't find the reference or the peer review for it.

Per the rest, I'd agree with SM's assessment of "compelling circumstantial evidence". While I won't claim to be metaphysically certain, I'm certain that we know the origin - both location and that it's a created, rather than natural occurance.

Can we trust those in charge (both in the US and China) to be honest with us in any regard?

To quote the great liberal, Ronald Reagan, you must trust but verify.

How much does politics play into finding/revealing the truth?

Not merely politics, but self-serving actions, too. For example, Dr. Fauci's denial of gain-of-function research involvement and funding has been shown to be disingenuous at best, and an outright lie at worst.

Bottomline--no matter what is done--will we ever really know what or how this all happened?

Nope, I agree. And to your point about politics, I doubt our leadership wants to know more. Take a worst case scenario, and I can guarantee our leadership does not want to be forced down that path. Nor do I.

[Mithrandir]

How many innocent people do we execute already who we had "no doubt" were the killers? Given that number, which is already quite large, imagine the increase if we were to remove due process.

OMG! Did you even pay attention to what I originally said??? I am not against due process, but when a person murders another in front of a large amount of eyewitnesses, how much due process is needed? So then give him a speedy trail then take him out and execute him.

[Kevin Seitzer]

OMG! Did you even pay attention to what I originally said??? I am not against due process, but when a person murders another in front of a large amount of eyewitnesses, how much due process is needed? So then give him a speedy trail then take him out and execute him.

That's exactly what supposedly happened in most Southern lynchings of black men/boys. What makes you think that wouldn't be exactly what would happen again? And the supposed murderer isn't around to tell a different story, so who is going to contradict that they committed a murder in front of a large amount of eyewitnesses? Even if they were alive and around to tell their story and they're a black man, a homeless man, a mentally disabled man, an illegal immigrant, etc., who is going to believe their side of the story anyway? All of those things are bad enough when you have due process and defense lawyers and appeals courts.

[Ken]

That's exactly what supposedly happened in most Southern lynchings of black men/boys. What makes you think that wouldn't be exactly what would happen again? And the supposed murderer isn't around to tell a different story, so who is going to contradict that they committed a murder in front of a large amount of eyewitnesses? Even if they were and they're a black man, a homeless man, a mentally disabled man, an illegal immigrant, etc., who is going to believe their side of the story anyway?

But you missed it, he's not against due process, only against due process for the real murderers.

The innocent people should get due process.

The guilty ones, execute immediately!

It's so obvious.

[GwynnInTheHall]

But you missed it, he's not against due process, only against due process for the real murderers.

The innocent people should get due process.

The guilty ones, execute immediately!

It's so obvious.

If you have trust in our system of justice, due process is the way to go.

However, it's been proven time again to be flawed. To favor those in positions of wealth and power. To be inequitable towards people of color and the poor.

So in the end, is due process really a thing?

[Ken]

If you have trust in our system of justice, due process is the way to go.

However, it's been proven time again to be flawed. To favor those in positions of wealth and power. To be inequitable towards people of color and the poor.

So in the end, is due process really a thing?

Is it perfect? Absolutely not.

I'm struggling to understand how it's worse than the immediate execution plan though.

In what scenarios, for those accused, is it better to be immediately executed than have due process?

[Kevin Seitzer]

If you have trust in our system of justice, due process is the way to go.

However, it's been proven time again to be flawed. To favor those in positions of wealth and power. To be inequitable towards people of color and the poor.

So in the end, is due process really a thing?

The fact that our current system is biased towards those with wealth and power makes you want to remove its protections so that...what? I'm pretty sure that the people getting summarily executed under Mith's and your idea of justice aren't going to be the people you and he want to be executed. The vigilantes you want to empower are not going to place a call to you and Mith to consult on standards of justice before they mete it out. It's going to be the same people getting screwed over by the current system, except under your proposal they have no recourse whatsoever. It's not going to be the rich and powerful getting summarily executed, however much you might wish that to be the outcome.