When will you allow yourself to be vaccinated?

Latest I heard was they were trying to rush the FDA emergency approval for vaccines to 5-12 year olds out in late October.

1 Like

Why is it a “rush” exactly? Have they not been testing them for many months now?

Sure, but kids react differently to vaccine doses so figuring out how much to give is also tricky. So there’s a phase one trial for dosing, followed by the larger phase 2/3 trial on whether it works and how well. I suspect they may just take a short cut and look at antibodies and call it good enough since kids are rarely symptomatic so getting enough of them for good stats could be hard and/or expensive.

The original adult covid trials started in mid March’20 and it was clearly a public health hazard to allow them to even be considered at the FDA before the Nov’20 election. Lots of our current elected officials told me so, while PFE slow rolled their trial and refused to hand over the interim results to their committee or the FDA. Oops. So they didn’t get their EUA from the FDA til mid Dec.

So the PFE trial for kids 5-12 began in late Mar’21, so you’d think that would be on a similar schedule to be approved by late Dec’21 if it followed the same, already very accelerated timing, of the adult covid vaccines.

The article was suggesting it could be 2 months sooner. I suspect if they continued on the same path, the end of the year would be a reasonable time. Of course if they create (have created?) a covid outbreak emergency by demanding all the kids go back to school in person, now the politicians (who need to do Something, since a lot of what they’ve been doing has gone Badly) and the vaccine companies (who are happy to sell more shots) can both get together and pressure the FDA to approve this early before the safety and efficacy data is all in.


PFE reported today that they would be submitting the EUA for 5-12 year old vaccines by early Oct, with the 0-5 year ones to follow shortly. Give the FDA several weeks to review it and you’re looking at late Oct / early Nov for the first authorized shots for kids.


Give the FDA several weeks to w̶a̶t̶c̶h̶ ̶p̶o̶r̶n̶ thumb (other appendage) twiddle before the guaranteed approval. :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

Sure does look that way, even last Nov. If confirmed; that’s despicable.

1 Like

2nd billing. Peds is the least paid specialty and they have to play the insurance game


The courts, one hopes, will scrutinize the Biden plan more carefully than the media. If constitutional principles are properly applied, the vaccine mandate will be quickly struck down.

1 Like

And that’s exactly what they’re doing. here’s the PFE pitch based on 2000 kids, almost none of whom got symptomatic cases.

A Pfizer spokesperson said the companies may later disclose vaccine efficacy from the trial but there have not been enough cases of COVID-19 yet among the participants to make that determination.

The companies said their two-dose vaccine generated an immune response in the 5-to-11 year olds in a Phase II/III clinical trial that matched what was previously observed in 16-to-25 year olds. The safety profile was also generally comparable to the older age group, they added.


No Vaccine, no problem in Israel … if you’ve had (and can prove) Covid in the last three months. Wow! How did common sense get into any legislation/bureaucratization? Recovered from COVID and traveling to Israel? No PCR test required - The Jerusalem Post


Israel probably has a similar problem as parts of NYC where a certain small segment of population strongly resist vaccines. And a certain guy was looking to get reelected, but it wasn’t to be.

The federal emergency rule does look like overreach and while IANAL, I do think it wouldn’t stand, legally. Rules going through the rulemaking process, IDK. It could still run into separation of powers issues.

What does look to be on firm legal ground is States enacting vaccine mandates. The MA SCOTUS case looks like a good fit there.

Has any States implemented their own mandates for their general populace thus far?

Nope. Gov allowed to specify government contract requirements. No issues there.

As for the osha directive (apply to 100+ employers), it’s not actually a mandate.
It’s only overreach if other osha existing authority is.

Specify new terms on existing contracts?

1 Like

“Pray we do not alter it any further”

1 Like

I asked you two weeks ago if you thought Trump had the authority to tell government contractors they couldn’t use CRT in HR training. You still haven’t answered.

An extreme oversimplification if I ever heard one. We don’t know the exact details and wording of the actual OSHA directive yet because they are still working on it. But when it is done and even before it is in place, there will be cases in the Federal Circuit Courts IMMEDIATELY attempting to get an injunction to stop it. It WILL go to the Supreme Court. How confident are you that SCOTUS will uphold it before you even know what it says? I’m sure you’ll admit that it likely won’t be a 9-0 decision. I’m not confident how it will end. You don’t think it could go 5-4 or 6-3 in either direction?


Not relevant. But anyways you would first have to define what you are implying by “CRT”, If you mean saying that they’re not allowed to attempt to reduce or avoid inequities in the workplace, that’s pretty nonsensical. If you’re instead referring to some imaginary made up thing you saw on Tucker Carlson, that’s also irrelevant.

Well duh. That’s why it’s unreasonable to spread anti-government propaganda saying something that doesn’t even exist yet and has no details known is somehow “unconstitutional”.

These EOs are not laws, they’re directives to the relevant agencies to develop (only) legal policies that conform to the EOs.

It is relevant. You approve of the government forcing contractors to do the thing you like under the president you agree with, but disagree with the government forcing contractors to do the thing you don’t like under the president you disagreed with. It’s the definition of hypocrisy.

Let’s see. Is today an even day or an odd day? On even days, the left claims that CRT exists, but only in high level college courses and law schools. Primary schools and corporations don’t teach it. They’re just doing run-of-the-mill diversity training. On odd days, CRT as defined by the right isn’t real CRT, so it doesn’t exist. I know you’re just trying to cover your bases, but all you do is end up contradicting yourself. You can’t have it both ways. It exists AND it’s being taught in mainstream corporate settings and public schools at all levels.

You don’t have to tell us they aren’t laws. Conservative voters in states with democrat governors have been complaining for over a year that we’re being ruled by executive fiat. We know it when we see it at the federal level too. Thankfully, there are a some SCOTUS justices that are willing to consider the notion that a pandemic can’t be an EMERGENCY forever and if the government wants it’s policies to have the force of law, they should actually consider, oh, I don’t know, legislating those policies into existence.


I didn’t contradict anything. I asked what you were referring to that “was being used in HR training” (nothing about schools at all), that said EO was supposed to correct. And of course you couldn’t.

The executive order itself lists examples

Training materials from Argonne National Laboratories, a Federal entity, stated that racism “is interwoven into every fabric of America” and described statements like “color blindness” and the “meritocracy” as “actions of bias.”

Materials from Sandia National Laboratories, also a Federal entity, for non-minority males stated that an emphasis on “rationality over emotionality” was a characteristic of “white male[s],” and asked those present to “acknowledge” their “privilege” to each other.

A Smithsonian Institution museum graphic recently claimed that concepts like “[o]bjective, rational linear thinking,” “[h]ard work” being “the key to success,” the “nuclear family,” and belief in a single god are not values that unite Americans of all races but are instead “aspects and assumptions of whiteness.” The museum also stated that “[f]acing your whiteness is hard and can result in feelings of guilt, sadness, confusion, defensiveness, or fear.”