Quote (InsaneBobb @ Sep 9 2021 03:58pm)
False, according to the WHO and CDC. Asymptomatic spread means you do not have the "disease". You carry the virus. So, according to the CDC, and the WHO, you can spread the virus. Done. Full stop. That's what "asymptomatic" means. To have the "disease" aka Covid, means that you are exhibiting the symptoms of that "disease". Where to be a "carrier" all you have to have is the SARS-CoV-2 virus in your body. Meaning, no symptoms, no disease. Now, once again, and I stress, for my entire lifetime, accepted medical science regarding flu and coronaviruses both was that you would not spread these viruses without contracting their associated diseases, which would make what you said true. However, in the specific case of SARS-CoV-2, the CDC and WHO have stated it can be spread WITHOUT the disease present. If that is true, IF that is true, then that means vaccines and natural immunity are BOTH ineffective to stop the spread, or even impact the spread in any meaningful way.
Once again, these are two of the foremost authorities on communicable diseases on the planet. If you are going to challenge their information, I would like some very detailed information on how. So, once again, Sauci is anti-science. As are you. According to the CDC and WHO.
SCOTUS's interpretation of the Commerce Clause agrees with mine. It impacts INTERstate commerce, not INTRAstate commers, and it's a power given only to Congress. Making all Executive mandates unconstitutional. The Executive does not have the authority.
You must have missed the mandate regarding Hospital workers. These are not federal employees crossing state lines. Regardless, this is a power of Congress, NOT the executive.
LOL.
Good. They deserve it. When the Fascists say jump, start jumping. :)
im done engaging on the disease vs virus aspect, because tbh its semantics you're using to avoid that getting vaccinated drastically lowers a persons chance to spread covid to another person. this is a basic fact you've run from for days now, which is as funny as it is sad tbh.
but executive orders are neither unconstitutional nor distinguishable from congressional legislation in their purview. the only distinction is in undoing them, which any president can do. u can cry about the creep of executive power through EOs in modern times, and i'd agree, but calling it illegal is ignorant.