Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

If someone had a Pfizer third shot that was about to be discarded, I'd take it.

YouTube suspended Sen. Rand Paul's account on Tuesday for posting a video claiming cloth face masks are ineffective against the coronavirus.

“A badge of honor ... leftwing cretins at Youtube banning me for 7 days for a video that quotes 2 peer reviewed articles saying cloth masks don’t work,” Paul, R-Ky., tweeted.

Paul falsely claimed in the removed video, “Most of the masks you get over the counter don’t work. They don’t prevent infection," adding that “cloth masks don’t work."


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/youtube-suspends-sen-rand-paul-over-video-falsely-claiming-masks-n1276534

Well, I think we were talking about long term effects, not short term mortality risk.

I think we already have evidence that mortality due to either COVID or the vaccine are not typical for otherwise healthy pregnant women, nor have I heard of any short-term effects of either that negatively harm the baby.

My point was that we have NO idea what the long term effects are of COVID on a child who was exposed to it in the womb. Just as we have NO idea what the long term effects are of the vaccine on a child whose mother gets it during pregnancy.

BTW I'm not saying that the pregnant lady in my example didn't choose correctly in choosing not to get the vaccine. I didn't have to advise anyone on making that choice, and I have not looked at any research whatsoever. It's entirely possible that avoiding the vaccine if you're pregnant is the rational decision.

What I'm saying is that for most people--pregnant or not--looking at the choice of getting or not getting the vaccine, they're evaluating the vaccine's potential long term effects but they're ignoring the fact that we have no idea what the long term effects are of COVID. Yet they're willing to "take a chance" on getting COVID and potentially dealing with the long-term effects because "getting COVID" doesn't require agency, while affirmatively getting the vaccine does.

San Francisco will require proof of full vaccination against coronavirus for indoor activities, including restaurants, bars and gyms.

Mayor London Breed made the announcement Thursday, saying it is needed to protect the health of workers, customers and the city overall. The move is more stringent than the requirement announced by New York City’s mayor last week. San Francisco will require proof of full vaccination for all customers and staff, while New York is requiring proof of at least one shot for indoor activities.

It will take effect next Friday, but businesses will have two months to verify employees’ vaccination status “to preserve jobs while giving time for compliance.” It doesn’t apply to people ineligible for vaccines, including kids under 12.

It will be interesting to see if a City can require this for private businesses

wonder how long before its challenged in court

My wife just retired from working for 15 years as a reading specialist at a school for kids who are "on the spectrum."  If any kids might be freaked out by masks, these would likely be the ones.  They don't like wearing masks, but they adapted to it as it was explained to them that wearing masks helps stop the spread of a disease that kills people, and that wearing a mask is very much preferable to wearing a ventilator.

This is an excellent point and is really at the crux of the argument. 

• We can't force everyone to get the vaccine. 
• We can say that unvaccinated people need to wear masks, and vaccinated people do. But this just means that nobody will wear masks, because the unvaccinated people aren't going to volunteer the information that they're unvaccinated. 
• So we decide that we want to force everyone to wear masks, BECAUSE the unvaccinated won't wear masks or get vaccinated. Thus punishing the vaccinated for the failure of the unvaccinated to comply with either.