> However, given that mRNA based COVID vaccines requires six monthly boosters and that mRNA has a median half life of about 10 hours in the body[1], and that mR

> However, given that mRNA based COVID vaccines requires six monthly boosters and that mRNA has a median half life of about 10 hours in the body[1], and that mRNA is disallowed entry into the nucleus unless specifically escorted in by specialist proteins, and that reports of myocarditis/pericarditis are very rare, and nearly always temporary, I'm unsure what is irreversible about them. Myocarditis/pericarditis is much more likely the younger you are. It is not rare, according to the standards by which we have judged other vaccines, which have been pulled over less. > I agree those were egregious actions. However, your last statement - can you expand on that? Is the survival rate higher in say, Texas, or Florida? Yeah, higher than New York, as far as I know. The vast majority of deaths in the early part of the pandemic came from New York. > This really comes down to constitutional law, which differs from country to country, but I assume that the executive has the power to pass edicts such as this, because the people who wrote, and the people who amended, the American constitution, saw it fit to do so. No, that power was never given in the US Constitution. Executive edicts only apply to the Executive Branch. In other words, the President can only issue orders to the employees in the Executive Branch; he cannot issue orders to ordinary citizens. And he can only issue orders to the Executive Branch in order to enforce laws passed by Congress. By the way, Congress also does not have that power. > That said, I'm sure if the mandates are unconstitutional in the USA, that the Supreme Court will declare them as such. No, unfortunately, the Roberts Court will bend over backward to give the government what it wants. See the opinion that declared Obamacare Constitutional. The legal reasoning is still considered one of the weakest the Supreme Court has ever published. > Once they're no longer infected, I agree. But when they become reinfected? Correct. > In reality, I don't want to deny anyone medical treatment, I was voicing my frustration at people who reject the evidence based medicine involved in developing the Covid vaccines, but then accept the evidence based medicine that may save their lives in an ICU - some of the more prominent leaders of the anti-vaccination movement in my country have been hospitalised with Delta, and continue minimising the seriousness of their illness on social media, from a hospital bed. And I can understand that. I have a relative who is rabidly anti-COVID vaccine. She is...unhealthy, and because of her health choices, she would probably benefit from the vaccine. But her radical opinions are blinding her to the best course of action for herself. I'm not rabidly anti-COVID vaccine; I want people to have the choice to get it or not. > Obviously, they and I share different opinions about the evidence that Covid vaccines are based on, but I wonder why their skepticism doesn't extend to intensive care. Agreed. I have decided to not get it for several reasons, not least of which is that I am staying healthy, but I also have seen evidence that pilots seem to be affected by it more than the average person (high altitude seems to be a factor). I want to be a pilot, so that worries me. But I also made the decision that if I get COVID and need to go to the hospital, I'm SOL because I've made that choice. My wife has been told to not take me to the hospital in that situation. People can claim I would cave if it happened, and while that might be fair, we never know unless it does. But for now, I do not want to contribute to the lack of hospital beds. That's the sacrifice I intend to make for society because yes, I agree that sacrifices need to be made in a pandemic. > Obviously, they and I share different opinions about the evidence that Covid vaccines are based on, but I wonder why their skepticism doesn't extend to intensive care. I agree with you completely here. It's disingenuous of them. Downright dishonest. > I'm still unsure what you mean by this. Are you referring to people who've had it once, and are then reinfected? Are they really non-infectious when reinfected? There's plenty of reports of reinfection. Correct. Non-infectious when reinfected. > If you have anything I could read on their ability to transmit it (or lack thereof) on subsequent infection, I'd read it with an open mind also. Nothing to read except an admission from the CDC that they have no data showing that the naturally immune transmit COVID when reinfected. [1] I can guarantee you that the CDC would be publishing that information if they had it because it undermines the credibility of natural immunity and bolsters the credibility of the vaccines. Instead, they do not even gather that data, so either it's not important (it is), or they don't want to have it because it would undermine their agenda. There might be another reason, but after all of the lying they admitted to, I'm not inclined to trust them. [1]: https://twitter.com/MichaelPSenger/status/1458953737397948418 https://twitter.com/MichaelPSenger/status/145895373739794841...