Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

CDC: Fully-Vaccinated People Can Gather Together Without Masks

CDC: Fully-Vaccinated People Can Gather Together Without Masks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnqm16NBRzY

The CDC’s latest COVID-19 guidelines state fully-vaccinated people can gather together without masks. You can also go maskless around low-risk non-vaccinated people.

The CDC considers you fully vaccinated two weeks after the second dosage and two weeks after the single shot from Johnson & Johnson.

The guidelines are as common sense as it gets. But the people need their betters to decide to move to the next level. God forbid you think for yourself.

Anyway.

The guidelines also say fully vaccinated people do not have to quarantine or get a test if they have been exposed to COVID-19 unless they have symptoms.

From the CDC:

What’s Changed

If you’ve been fully vaccinated:

  • You can gather indoors with fully vaccinated people without wearing a mask.
  • You can gather indoors with unvaccinated people from one other household (for example, visiting with relatives who all live together) without masks, unless any of those people or anyone they live with has an increased risk for severe illness from COVID-19.
  • If you’ve been around someone who has COVID-19, you do not need to stay away from others or get tested unless you have symptoms.
  • However, if you live in a group setting (like a correctional or detention facility or group home) and are around someone who has COVID-19, you should still stay away from others for 14 days and get tested, even if you don’t have symptoms.

“We know that people want to get vaccinated so they can get back to doing the things they enjoy with the people they love,” said CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky. “There are some activities that fully vaccinated people can begin to resume now in their own homes. Everyone – even those who are vaccinated – should continue with all mitigation strategies when in public settings. As the science evolves and more people get vaccinated, we will continue to provide more guidance to help fully vaccinated people safely resume more activities.”

The CDC recommends you stay six feet apart from each other and avoid crowds:

  • In Public
  • Gathering with unvaccinated people from more than one other household
  • Visiting with an unvaccinated person who is at increased risk of severe illness or death from COVID-19 or who lives with a person at increased risk

Experts believe 9.2% of the population is considered fully vaccinated. They estimate over 17% of the population has at least one dose.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

NonyaBeeswax | March 8, 2021 at 1:25 pm

According to the most recent information released by the CDC/VAERS:
47% of the people who had side effects within 48 hrs of the vaccine died. 20% of those deaths were cardio-pulmonary. These stats have been statistically repeated across the world.

No thank you. You can keep your poison. I’ll gladly give up my white privilege and donate it to anyone who really has a death wish and doesn’t care about the consequences of their actions!

    FiftycalTX2 in reply to NonyaBeeswax. | March 8, 2021 at 2:33 pm

    Gee, 2 days after I had the 2nd vaccine, my arm hurt a little at the injection site. But i didn’t DIE! So please go live in a NYC nursing home. I’m sure you will FEEL better there. Oh, are you over 75, obese, have COPD or a heart disease? If not, you are NOT AT RISK of dying from kung flu. But you can transmit it without even showing any symptoms. Get vaccinated fool.

      LibraryGryffon in reply to FiftycalTX2. | March 8, 2021 at 2:49 pm

      It does seem that “asymptomatic” transmission is rare enough to be statistically non-existent. There have also been a few documented cases (out of millions world-wide) where someone was infectious shortly before they developed symptoms.

      So basically, if you don’t have symptoms, use commonsense (yes, I know, commonsense if very uncommon), don’t sneeze or cough directly on people, and don’t get all up in their faces or invade their personal space, and everyone should be fine.

      Fecal transmission in bathrooms and other unsanitary environments. Otherwise, look for symptoms (e.g. coughing, sneezing), and a greenhouse effect to facilitate transmission.

      randian in reply to FiftycalTX2. | March 8, 2021 at 11:56 pm

      As Fauci said early last year, asymptomatic people play no meaningful part in pandemics.

    mark311 in reply to NonyaBeeswax. | March 8, 2021 at 3:18 pm

    Not correct at all

    CDC’s commentary is as follows

    “Over 76 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through March 1, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 1,381 reports of death (0.0018%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. CDC and FDA physicians review each case report of death as soon as notified and CDC requests medical records to further assess reports. A review of available clinical information including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records revealed no evidence that vaccination contributed to patient deaths. CDC and FDA will continue to investigate reports of adverse events, including deaths, reported to VAERS.”

    https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html

      mark311 in reply to mark311. | March 8, 2021 at 3:20 pm

      For clarity the comment is aimed at 2NonyaBeeswax

      Sounds about right. If you lined up 76 million people and gave them all a shot of normal saline solution, I’d expect a certain minute percentage to drop over dead, more since the shoot-ees are heavily weighted to elderly and already delicate.

      Brave Sir Robbin in reply to mark311. | March 8, 2021 at 5:47 pm

      Perhaps you would like to investigate how many people died in close temporal association with receiving the flu vaccine which has been much more widely distributed the COVID vaccines.

      Get back to us and let us know what you find in comparison.

        Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Brave Sir Robbin. | March 8, 2021 at 6:11 pm

        Ok, ok…. I can’t wait any longer. In 2020, 25 people died shortly after getting a flu vaccination, according to CDC VARES.

        So far, according to CDC VARES, we have had 1,118 COVID vaccination deaths. These COVID vaccine related deaths account for 82.94% of all vaccine related deaths cumulative SINCE THE YEAR 2001.

        As I remember, the FLU vaccine is not denied to the elderly who, in fact, are encouraged to get one.

        Yes, the bottom on the the report generated by the database states, “Note: Submitting a report to VAERS does not mean that healthcare personnel or the vaccine caused or contributed to the adverse event (possible side effect).”

        Yup, I get that. But I also get there is a very substantial and statistically significant difference between close temporal death events of the COVID vaccines AND EVERY OTHER VACCINE TRACKED BY THE CDC.

        But “the science” says everyone must get the vaccine. I am not sure who “the Science” is, but the data clearly demonstrates caution is called for.

        As I have said many times, this is an experimental drug provided via emergency use authorization, and administration should be restricted to those members of the population that will derive a clear and unambiguous benefit from the drug. This drug should not be given to low risk populations, and should be carefully considered before administration to medium risk populations, especially since we do not know the long term side effects which are potentially devastating. Do administer this drug to low risk populations is clearly unethical and immoral by time honored standards.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Brave Sir Robbin. | March 8, 2021 at 6:18 pm

          “Do administer this drug to low risk populations is clearly unethical and immoral by time honored standards.”

          Sorry – Do NOT administer this drug to low risk populations. Doing so is clearly unethical and immoral by time honored standards.

          That’s just the people dying right now. We haven’t seen anything yet, as most of the animal subjects who died from mRNA vaccines didn’t die right after taking them, but sometime later due to either a vaccine-induced autoimmune disease or antibody amplification when re-exposed to the disease for which the mRNA vaccine was developed.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Brave Sir Robbin. | March 9, 2021 at 1:33 am

          “antibody amplification when re-exposed to the disease for which the mRNA vaccine was developed.”

          This is one of my primary worries with this vaccine technology.

          Given the current statistics, the vaccine may kill more low risk persons than it could possibly save even as initial side effect. It is my opinion it should not be given to children and young adults who are in otherwise good health until more information and data is obtained. It has close to a 4,500% greater near temporal mortality rate than the flu vaccine.

          Trial results like this would normally throw up major red flags, and probably derail development.

          It seems the powers that be are intended to use us in the largest experimental drug trial in history. People are not test animals. Any plan to administer this drug to low risk individuals is both unwise and unethical.

          This is one of my primary worries with this vaccine technology.

          Death is my primary short term worry, but female sterility is my long-term worry. What with World Economic Forum (which our elites like Bill Gates endorse) pundits talking about how great it is the cities are quiet, and how enthusiastic they are about photos of empty streets, it’s obvious they are proponents of first world depopulation. Why are they so hard up to push mRNA vaccines, and what do they know about them that I don’t?

          @BSR

          In terms of making a comparison between death near the vaccination event and deaths you are going to have to be specific. Set out your methodology with time frames , total vaccination rates and ‘linked’ deaths etc then come back to me. Ok I’m somewhat wary of the figures you give given that the don’t match the source I’ve linked too.

          No offense but I’m going to rely on the authoritive source backed back the medical profession over your statement.

          @randian

          Regarding fertility the trials had a large sample set so during the course of that women did get pregnant during and after. Both in the test cohort and the placebo cohort. There was no statistically significant different between these two groups.

          https://www.uab.edu/news/youcanuse/item/11864-addressing-fertility-questions-and-concerns-with-the-covid-19-vaccine

          Regarding fertility the trials had a large sample set so during the course of that women did get pregnant during and after

          Those trials were far too short to make any meaningful statement about long-term fertility effects. Some women got pregnant? So what, that’s almost useless. How many women were expected to get pregnant?

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Brave Sir Robbin. | March 9, 2021 at 9:41 am

          It’s not my methodology Mark, it’s the CDC’s. You like their data, so there it is. It’s “apples to apples” comparative data.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Brave Sir Robbin. | March 9, 2021 at 11:18 am

          “Regarding fertility the trials had a large sample set so during the course of that women did get pregnant during and after. Both in the test cohort and the placebo cohort. There was no statistically significant different between these two groups.”

          I would tend to say this assertion is likely correct. However the article you linked provides many assertions but no actual data to support those assertions.

          There is a statement in it, however, I think is incorrect. DART studies on this vaccine have yet to be completed. The CDC has been collecting data on fertility of women post mRNA vaccination, but has not released either data or results at this time.

          My position would be to avoid the vaccine if you are healthy and in a low risk group. If you become pregnant, you are in a higher risk group however, and vaccination, mRNA or otherwise, may be justified under various circumstance, but certainly not in all cases.

          @ BSR

          “It’s not my methodology Mark, it’s the CDC’s. You like their data, so there it is. It’s “apples to apples” comparative data.”

          Well that’s not really the case is it, CDC have stated that the deaths aren’t linked to Covid and you have used those stats as a bases for your argument without identifying a means of linking it with the flu stats you cite. To make those numbers meaningful and supportive of your argument you need a context. The numbers you picked don’t match the CDC link numbers so how is anyone to know what data set you are actually looking at and how they relate?

          With regard to the pregnancy link. Its an article based on the clinical trials. its only asserting that those trials are true and well founded. Its a fair point that there are no numbers within the article you’d have to look at the trial data.

        @BSR

        So what? If your point is that the close proximity of the deaths link it to the vaccine then you’d be arguing the medical professionals in multiple distinct cases have lied about the cause of death. Which is a stretch to say the least. Given the number of vaccine doses statistically you’d expect some deaths from a number of non vaccine related causes within the time frame.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to mark311. | March 9, 2021 at 9:48 am

          “So what? If your point is that the close proximity of the deaths link it to the vaccine then you’d be arguing the medical professionals in multiple distinct cases have lied about the cause of death.”

          No Mark. Again THIS IS AN EXPERIMENTAL DRUG. As such, the cause and mechanism of death after administration may not be known or understood. In addition, the CDC is NOT saying the COVID vaccines were not a cause of death. The CDC is saying they are unable to make that determination at this time. That is a HUGE difference.

          It is irresponsible, unethical, and immoral to administer a drug that has demonstrated 4,500% greater association with death and for which we do not understand or know the long-term side effects of, to a low risk population that cannot receive any conceivable benefit.

          That massive 4,500% difference is massive red flag that normally would, and should, halt a trial until the matter was figured out.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | March 9, 2021 at 4:35 pm

          Again no its not, its gone through clinical trials the only aspect is the post phase 3 follow up which hasn’t been carried out. There is extensive testing and data that show its a safe drug.

          No again I quote “A review of available clinical information including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records revealed no evidence that vaccination contributed to patient deaths” that doesn’t correspond to what you state.

          You are picking numbers out of the air with no context. Unless you can show you are comparing apples to apples the number you state is meaningless.

“…can gather…” not “may gather” is interesting. Papers please.

Colonel Travis | March 8, 2021 at 1:52 pm

Thank you, gracious and almighty overlords.

Still and again: And what people like me (and my whole family) who have recovered from covid19, and have antibodies galore? No needles required.

Are there guidelines and ‘passports’ for our kind?

Of course not. There’s no scam- demic big bucks in that for BIG PHARMA.

    nordic_prince in reply to locomotivebreath1901. | March 8, 2021 at 2:29 pm

    Of course that’s what it’s been about from Day One – $$$, power, and control. “Health”/”Safety” is just the BS ad copy they’ve been using to sell it to rubes and plebes.

    stevewhitemd in reply to locomotivebreath1901. | March 8, 2021 at 3:17 pm

    Regrettably, the science is unclear whether you have ‘full’ protection against repeat COVID infection. For some viral infection, a single infection provides lifelong immunity. For others (e.g., herpes zoster, ‘shingles’) it does not. This has been a bone of contention for COVID. The current recommendation (and this may change) is that people previously infected with COVID should wait 90 days after resolution and then be vaccinated. To make this even more confusing, there are reports of increased vaccination reaction in that group of patients.

      henrybowman in reply to stevewhitemd. | March 8, 2021 at 4:18 pm

      The science is equally unclear whether you have ‘full’ protection against repeat COVID infection if you take the vaccination, either… despite how they imply, by omission, that you do.

        stevewhitemd in reply to henrybowman. | March 8, 2021 at 4:53 pm

        The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines provide 90-92% protection after the 2nd dose, and 99%+ protection against serious COVID infection. That’s easily 20 to 30 points higher than the influenza vaccine.

        Nothing is 100% in life but this is darned good.

      randian in reply to stevewhitemd. | March 9, 2021 at 12:14 am

      Shingles isn’t re-infection, it’s a reactivation of viruses long dormant in your body. Unfortunately adults react differently to the virus than children do, that’s why it has harsher symptoms. I wonder if that has anything to do with why children with covid-19 also have milder symptoms than adults, but I digress.

      I was diagnosed with multiple chicken pox episodes as a child. Even more strangely, I am one of the few adults for whom reactivated chicken pox manifests as chicken pox rather than shingles. I had thankfully forgotten how nasty the itching was.

      You get some strange looks walking into a hospital with chicken pox, probably because most onlookers assume that though it looks just like chicken pox, it must be something much worse since I am not a child.

The infantalization of the US continues.

Who the fuck needed the CDC to tell them that it was now ‘safe’ to gather together after you’ve been vaccinated. That’s literally the entire purpose of vaccination.

Christ these morons make me sick. TAKE OWNERSHIP OF YOUR OWN FUCKING LIFE JESUS.

    n.n in reply to Olinser. | March 8, 2021 at 3:00 pm

    A preliminary report on all causes mortality year over year.

    covid-19-s-death-toll-compared-to-other-things-that-kill-us
    h/t Are You Done Yet?

    Mortality is correlated with comorbidities (e.g. obesity) correlated with age. There have been inexpensive, effective, low-risk early and even late stage treatments to mitigate disease progression since the beginning of the pandemic. Denying and stigmatizing these treatments, social contagion driving herd stampedes, and deceptive restrictive mandates (e.g. shelter in place, anything less than N95 masks (and goggles) following strict protocol) contributed to excess hospitalizations and deaths.

so can unvaccinated people.

I just pulled the numbers myself from VAERS and see 1136 deaths from 28942 possibly associated effects.

    LibraryGryffon in reply to MattMusson. | March 8, 2021 at 2:43 pm

    Much more reasonable-looking statistics, though that’s still something like 3%.

    The side effects folks I know have reported were at worst mild cold/flu-like symptoms the day after the shot which resolved the day after that. One of those people was 84, but otherwise in good health. On the other hand the 80yo had no side effects from either dose.

      Brave Sir Robbin in reply to LibraryGryffon. | March 8, 2021 at 3:16 pm

      People with healthier immune systems will tend to have stronger side effects as their immune system is reacting more vigorously. The common side effects are a sign it’s working.

      The serious side effects are serious, and reporting indicates why this should, and is, considered an experimental drug. It should as of now be used only when the benefits clearly outweigh the risk. I would not, at this point, give this to anyone under the age of 55 (maybe 60) unless they had certain comorbidities.

      I would concentrate use of the JnJ vaccine to this younger group.

    stevewhitemd in reply to MattMusson. | March 8, 2021 at 3:18 pm

    Keep in mind that there are hundreds of thousands of mild reactions that are not reported. We generally don’t report the reaction of a mild headache, or sore arm, or low grade fever that clears in a day. That could be 3 to 20% of the recipients; we don’t know.

    mark311 in reply to MattMusson. | March 8, 2021 at 3:22 pm

    With 0 being linked to the vaccine

      Ironclaw in reply to mark311. | March 8, 2021 at 3:46 pm

      Well, they say it’s not linked. But they’re corrupt, lying assholes, so nobody should believe them.

      Brave Sir Robbin in reply to mark311. | March 8, 2021 at 6:46 pm

      “With 0 being linked to the vaccine.”

      They are not saying that at all. They are actually saying, with careful reading, they cannot, at this time, say if they are or are not linked.

      1,118 deaths shortly after administration of the COVID vaccine.

      25 after being given the flu vaccine in 2020.

      Unless they are giving the COVID vaccine to people literally on their death bed….

        That’s exactly what they said, the medical professionals did not determine a link with the vaccine.

        As for your stats I’ve no way of comparing them. What time frame have you used for both vaccine types, how many vaccination events have there been what’s the profile of those being vaccinated and then went on to die at a later stage. We know that the high risk group ie the elderly and those with health condition (s) are at a higher risk of death anyway. I can’t make comment on numbers like this without a proper context.

nordic_prince | March 8, 2021 at 2:33 pm

Funny, I’ve been gathering together with other people (masked/non-masked) for 12 months now. Haven’t been sick at all. No experimental poison shot necessary.

    Dathurtz in reply to nordic_prince. | March 8, 2021 at 3:07 pm

    Odd, right? Pretty much everybody in my area realized we could gather no matter what the CDC says.

      mark311 in reply to Dathurtz. | March 8, 2021 at 3:24 pm

      Which proves precisely nothing. You have no means of knowing whether you or those you were associated with were asymptomatic and transmitted the virus to others.

        henrybowman in reply to mark311. | March 8, 2021 at 4:20 pm

        But the burden of proof isn’t on him to prove it didn’t happen — it’s on you to prove it did.

          mark311 in reply to henrybowman. | March 9, 2021 at 6:17 am

          That’s an interesting question. Depends how you frame it. If you are asking whether person a by not following guidelines has definitely contributed to Covid transmission sure thats tricky to prove. What you can say is that if group a by not following guidelines then they are likely to have contributed to Covid transmissions. That’s statistically more probably depending on the size of the group and the specific location. When I mean group by the way I mean a large group in a state not an isolated community. Clearly as the size of the group goes down the less of a threat it is. Hence why social distancing tends to talk about group sizes. A group of 6 people is less problematic than a group of 250,000 people for example.

          So in answer to your burden of proof I’m saying it kinda depends from a pure science perspective in terms of causality. From a moral perspective it’s also wrong though, there is no loss of liberty from wearing a mask and wearing one means a reduced chance of transmitting Covid thus doing your part in society in getting through a crisis. Unless there is a medical excuse for not wearing a mask in group situations.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to henrybowman. | March 9, 2021 at 10:10 am

          “From a moral perspective it’s also wrong though, there is no loss of liberty from wearing a mask and wearing one means a reduced chance of transmitting Covid thus doing your part in society in getting through a crisis.”

          Mark – if you are being forced to do something, you have a loss of liberty. It’s sort of the definition.

          You may be of the opinion that this loss of freedom is trivial. Others can disagree. There is the slippery slope argument which, given the massive loss of freedoms arbitrarily imposed such as restrictions on travel and association, social distancing, etc., the point is not lost on people who value their freedom.

          Second, as for efficacy, mask wearing is not supported as a means of control of infection, you misinterpretation of data not withstanding. If it were effective, why do we so have much transmission of COVID, and why are the “authorities” starting to recommend double masking, which is not catching on because it is ludicrous in the face of the evidence and has all the appearance of embarrassed people who are trying to save their reputations doubling down on failure.

          Third, reliance on ineffective mitigation and control measures only serves to spread the infection as people who think they are doing the responsible thing are misled and engage in practices and activities that actually cause harm, and avoid other simple but effective mitigation and control measures and activities.

          mark311 in reply to henrybowman. | March 9, 2021 at 4:42 pm

          @Brave Sir Robbin

          No the slippery slope argument doesn’t work. The constraints of the loss of liberty has well defined bounds ie there is a pandemic. Similar losses of liberty are well accepted in say a total war situation.

          With regard to masks their is ample studies as I’ve linked to that demonstrate the efficy. Your argument that Covid transmissions have continued actually supports my argument. The US has had a terrible set of compliance for mask usage. Hence why other countries which have adopted stricter and more consistent measures have a lower death rate.

          How precisely have I misinterpreted the mask data, given that’s the expert opinion from scientists id like to hear why you think the number don’t give rise to protection. You are going against the grain of scientific opinion.

        Dathurtz in reply to mark311. | March 8, 2021 at 7:04 pm

        What are the numbers on asymptomatic transmission?

        nordic_prince in reply to mark311. | March 8, 2021 at 8:43 pm

        Asymptomatic transmission of “covid” is so rare as to be statistcally insignificant.

        Nice try to guilt people, but with a whole year of BS like that, I’ve built up an immunity to guilt trips.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to nordic_prince. | March 8, 2021 at 11:08 pm

          Asymptomatic transmission of COVID likely does not exist.

          mark311 in reply to nordic_prince. | March 9, 2021 at 6:26 am

          @BSR

          Asymptomatic transmission of covid is absolutely a potential pathway. Just because it has t been quantified doesn’t mean it’s unlikely

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to nordic_prince. | March 9, 2021 at 9:55 am

          “Asymptomatic transmission of covid is absolutely a potential pathway. Just because it has t been quantified doesn’t mean it’s unlikely”

          Mark, if it has not been observed, though rigorously looked for, then the theory that it exists is invalidated. This is a basic tenant of SCIENCE. Perhaps not “the Science,” but of actual science, certainly.

          mark311 in reply to nordic_prince. | March 9, 2021 at 4:51 pm

          @BSR

          Incorrect there have been many instances of tests from symptom free persons having Covid, the issue is clearly that those without symptoms have a lower probability of being tested. Hence the difficult in quantifying.

        nordic_prince in reply to mark311. | March 9, 2021 at 9:05 am

        If it makes you feel better, I’ve been to so-called “superspreader” events and haven’t gotten even the teeniest bit sick.

        Spread of “covid” by “asymptomatic” individuals is so rare it’s pretty much off the radar. Even the vaunted WHO admitted that in a rare moment of clarity, but of course that had to be walked back because it didn’t fit the Great Reset Chicken Little sky-is-falling narrative. Take away the “asymptomatic transmission” myth and you have NO reason for universal mask mandates (even if you buy the hype that masks are effective mechanisms for reducing the spread of viral infections… a notion that is backed up by NOT A SINGLE RCT).

Why isn’t CDC saying we can now go without masks? Their latest info shows no reason for mask mandates.
https://nationalfile.com/numbers-in-the-new-cdc-report-destroy-the-case-for-mask-mandates/
“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a report Friday in which it quietly admitted that the mask mandates in America were allegedly responsible for less than a 2 percent decrease in COVID case growth after ONE HUNDRED DAYS. But still the CDC advises wearing masks, despite their own numbers.” This 2% appears to be within margin of error.

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to lc. | March 8, 2021 at 6:15 pm

    In addition, this observed reduction did not have statistical significance, so it cannot be said that observed reduction, as minor as it is, was do to anything other than chance alone.

    mark311 in reply to lc. | March 9, 2021 at 6:24 am

    That’s a misquote, I’ve previously linked to a study that states it’s 2% reduction per day which is much more significant than the way you frame it.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-77093-z

Something I’ve been saying (and others) since the beginning of the covidiocy- now verified by SCIENCE! Are you taking Vitamin D supplements? Do you even know your Vitamin D blood level? If not, print this out- and bring it to your next doctors appointment- and ask for, if necessary, demand a Vitamin D blood level test. Well, that’s if you live in NY or one of the other nanny states that forbids you from walking into a lab and ordering up your own tests because in those states you’re a subject not a citizen who’s allowed to make his or her own decisions. If you live in a free state where you’re a citizen (well, right now, really only SD) look up your closest lab online, head towards it, and get your own test done. YOU are responsible for your health, not your doctor, not your insurance company, and certainly not the DEMONCRAT NY State legislature and Dictator Cuomo. It’s one of the less expensive lab tests.

I think a lower stress level will do us all good, and I practice what I preach.
-No idea what vitamin may magically reduce my susceptibility to whatever I catch, but I take a daily multivitamin just in case.
-Despite already having (and obviously surviving) Covid, I still wear my KPD (Karen Protection Device) when shopping. I found a comfortable one that adjusts, and it stays in my pocket wherever I go.
-If I see somebody in an enclosed area like a shop without a mask, I don’t go Karen on them. Their decision.
-Same thing if I wind up somewhere that requires ’em.
-Wife already had her first shot and is in line for the second. Got it the minute she could despite hobbling in with her walker after knee replacement surgery.
-Since they say you should get a shot even if you had it, just near the back of the line, I’m good for that.
-My ‘kids’ are going to get theirs first opportunity. (Twenty-somthings need a better name than ‘kids’)
-Nationally, offices are giving some quiet feedback to the insane capacity rules. There’s a massive productivity hit for a lot of people working from home (which is why we have offices in the first place) so the counting of heads is distorted. “Oh, yeah. We’ll be abiding by the requirements you dictated. No prob.”

What’s really going to trip the open-up avalanche is the realization of local governments that their own ox is getting gored by dropping tax revenue that the Feds won’t cover completely.

Like pelosi did? Like newsom did?

What a scam.

Thanks for giving me permission!! Will this control of our Constitutional rights ever be challenged?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend