Posted on 05/28/2022 11:19:08 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Governor Gavin Newsom tested positive for COVID-19 Saturday, according to his office, and plans to work remotely. He will remain in isolation through at least June 2 and until he tests negative.
"This morning, the governor tested positive for COVID-19 after exhibiting mild symptoms," the statement said.
The statement also said that the governor has received a prescription for the antiviral drug Paxlovid, which has proven effective against COVID-19, and that he will begin his 5-day regimen of the medication immediately.
The governor is vaccinated and has received both eligible boosters, as recently as May 18.
Saying you criticized Fauci in your posts is meaningless. You supported his policies and those of other related agencies as to mandates public and private, and as to denial of early treatment protocols. You’re trying to be Fauci without being Fauci.
Nuremberg did not “move on” after the Nazis either. They were prosecuted, convicted, jailed or hanged. As others have pointed out, there is a significant spike in death of working age ppl. “sudden and unexpected” is the new cause of death it seems. You ppl own those. You ppl own the cancer that my Mom had which had been well-managed until after her 2x Pf...then dead 10 months later. I don’t personally hold you responsible, obviously. But you’re part of the cadre which supported the policies. You’ll probably not face the music in this lifetime. But in the next? That’s between you and God.
You are wrong my friend. And time to call your BS. Show me one post where I ever supported a mandate public or private. What k did state was that private business have the right to mandate things for their employees I live in an at will state. My will for my employees being dispositive. I did not mandate vaccination. I stated that several times.
I did not ever support public policy of masking, social distance or business closures. Again show me one place where I did. You’re up in arms against my educated judgment that the so called early treatment protocols meaning specifically ivermectin an HCQ where ineffective. If you were honest you would post the redaction of the most major and supportive multiple studies demonstrating efficacy of either and what you fail to acknowledge is that i rejected these protocols based on both equivocal data and lack of efficacy based on my prescribing these when we had no other decent alternatives.
When monoclonals were available i supported their use as superior in every way to treat the disease and it was. Vaccination was not a panacea but certainly stopped disease progression during the delta wave which was the deadliest strain.
CoVId has not advanced to endemic and is pretty contagious and mild. I hasn’t seen a symptomatic in months and there are no hospitalized cases of CoVId that was not doing incidentally (confirming that this is in fact the stealth variant).
If you want to continue this debate which is over because the disease is over have at it. But. Will never let you revise my statements retrospectively as it appears that I was correct in nearly all my judgments. Which is precisely what one would expect from someone who practices medicine when a medicine subject becomes front and center, and unlike many, when one speaks from a position of expertise and science and not politics and emotion.
“What k did state was that private business have the right to mandate things for their employees I live in an at will state”
And that is just it. Most of the employers did, leaving millions of employees in a position where they felt they had no choice. And they no more have that right, than they have the right to mandate torture or a cup of hemlock or the first right to spend the night with the new bride of an employee or to traffic in children. Legally they may have the right, but morally and Constitutionally they do not. I came close to losing my job and my home because of ppl like you. And I am still prohibited from entering my offices, because of ppl like you.
As to IVM and HCQ, as early treatments they are extremely effective, and that is what the published research shows. Hospital treatment may be another matter in some instances. But hospitals are where ppl went to die of medical neglect. We know. I have a neighbor and several friends who went through this a MAJOR hospitals.
The large increase in non-cv19 deaths among working age ppl should concern but you are in denial. These are kill shots.
Well you seem to rage against me with unfounded statements. I did not mandate any vaccinations. I cannot control what other private business does. However, I support a business owner making a decision in the best interferest of his or her business. I am sorry you had a different experience. You seem to continue to stare falsehoods about my stance. A private business as far as o am concerned can act as the shareholders or owner sees for.
As for early treatments, you continually say they are extremely effective. This simply is not born out in the Sara. The second big IVM study was recently retracted. They fact of the matter is the most superior treatment of the infected state is monoclonals. Period.
Please stop attacking me with your false recollections and see things for what they are. You have misrepresented my statements for your convenience. This is.hardly intellectually honest.
You repeated your same ridiculous arguments.
There are things private businesses simply cannot require as a condition of employment. Can we agree on that? Probably not, because you want to allow businesses to dictate medical treatment of their employees. You want to hide behind the deceitful claim that prohibiting private max mandates is “telling a private company how to run their business”, which of course it isn’t. You’re a deceitful person who should never be trusted with offering medical advice.
That's a bold statement!
I had a relatively mild case in Nov. of 2020, but definitely noted that the symptoms were unlike any I've ever had before.
Granted: If there had never been any news of Covid, I would have dismissed my peculiar symptoms as merely those of an "unusual" flu.
But it is a gross oversimplification to claim that it's "impossible" to tell the difference.
Regards,
Ok. Since we are in to name calling. You are a tyrant who says freedom is just fine and dandy until you disagree with it then you want lawfare and to force people to bend to your will. I trust the free market. If an employee makes a decision for the benefit of his business that, is his or her freedom. If an employee doesn’t like it, he or she may seek other employment. In this free relationship the business owner becomes responsible to market forces. The market will more accurately and quickly tell you the opinion of the public than any thing else. As a private business owner, no one has the right to demand and require I employ them and to my resources. Of course and an employer, I have no right to an employees work. We can agree to a mutually beneficial relationship so long as it is mutually beneficial as defined by the employer and and the employee.
But you are a wolf in sheep clothing. You proclaim freedom as long as you agree with it. Freedom is only that if you are able to proclaim it exists for someone who doesn’t agree with you. You are the reason why there should be a loser pay tort system. Two private entities are allowed to enter an agreement, employment being a private agreement and freedom demands you stay the hell of it. If you think you have standing to meddle in that might i suggest you head down the road about a mile and hang a left. Go a couple miles will find democratic underground. You will feel more comfortable there because they, like you, believe in the infallibility of their own perspective and are willing to force that perspective on everyone else.
You still have not described what limits, if any, employers have over their employees as a condition of business.
Individual people have freedoms. Businesses and corporations do not have individual Constitutional rights under the Bill of Rights. Why do you believe otherwise? Where in the bill of Rights is there a right of the employee to forcibly inject his employees as a condition of employment? It is not there.
Last time I ask the question. Is there a line which limits what employers can require of employees, and what is that line. Answer the question.
First of all in citizens United vs the FEC the Supreme Court held that congress cannot restrict corporations including not for profits from independent financial contributions under a first amendment analysis. Thus, at least according to the Supreme Court, business and corporations have a first amendment protection which is on point question directly disproving your statement that businesses do not have constitutional protections. So your argument is sunk on this simple point.
While you wrap yourself in the constitution, your application of it Is entirely incorrect. It is also actually a liberal argument. It’s ok. Lots of dues in the wool conservative fail to understand their arguments, rather parroting talking points. So let here is the answer to your question on point and what I had said all along.
The constitution, including the bill of rights and subsequent amendments define the government and its relationship to the people. The bill of rights to not grant rights, they restrict the government. But everything in the constitution defines the relationship between the government and the people.
Private relationships as described employment unless it occurs between the government and a person is bound by private contract. The Supreme Court has always been very deferential to private contracts in the rare instance that a purely private contract dispute rises to the level of the federal Supreme Court. The proper court of jurisdiction for private contract disputes are state district courts and falls under tort law. The final court of jurisdiction on these cases would be state level Supreme Court. Therefore while you site the federal in support of your argument and your attempt to grant some sort of legal backing to your argument, it does not exist. In fact, your are using the wrong rule book.
In terms of your direct question is there a line that limits what an employer can require an employee to do? Sure. That is the purpose of why private contracts exist. An employee employer relationship exists in the private setting. The parties are free to negotiate an agreement that is mutually satisfactory to both. Whatever that agreement is remains between the parties. In a purely at Will state of which there are five, unless restricted by a contract between the parties, an employer has the absolute discretion to employ or continue employment at his or her will with that persons will being dispositive.
What you seems to disagree with is that the employee has no rights. Completely untrue. An employee is free to negotiate the terms of employment and then enforce those terms of violated. In contract law where there is silence on an issue, there is no ability to enforce anything as contracts describe private relationships. If there is a crappy and unreasonable employer, the marker will correct this by the employer will rapidly find him or herself with no employees and unable to recruit. That is a a very efficient way of taking care of the problem. Without government interference.
I am of the opinion that I trust the free maker which you don’t seem to. I am further under the impression that no one has the right to the fruits of my private business or any other private business owners. As an owner I am equally entitled to negotiate with an employee terms of employment and ultimately the employee is free to not accept terms.
I have answered all your questions on point. Quite clearly we will not afeee on this. That’s ok. I assume we have significant common ground on other conservative issues and as looming large in the windscreen is a midterm of significant import, rather than perpetuating conflict, I think we should jointly fight for the large issues that are in fact a direct danger to our freedoms from a tyrannical government than these issues.
Thank you for your questions and the opportunity to explain what I know to be the correct interpretation of prevailing law.
So you think it is lawful for an employment contract to include a requirement that the boss bugger my kids? If not, why not?
There are limits to contracts.
Bottom line, no employer has a right to insist on me taking a medical treatment as a condition of employment, especially when it has nothing to do with my job.
And you’re a lying sack of $%^& for suggesting that I think that employers have no rights. Business rights are defined by law. They are not Constitutional rights.
Every Democrat agrees with you.
It is all Republicans defending the rights of individual bodily autonomy.
You simply cannot be serious. There are laws against statuaries rape as defined by penal law properly legislated. There is a prohibition that a private contract cannot codify criminal law
There is currently nothing illegal or criminal about vaccination despite your personal feelings. Therefore, yes, a private business is able to mandate vaccination as a condition of work.
Bottom line. An employer can choose to require you to have vaccination. You have no right to employment. Your remedy is to seek work elsewhere.
This is the actual law. If you want to change it, run for office.
At this point we must agree to disagree. I see no reason to further discuss this issue.
Yes. And we propose to create laws against requiring or forcing vaccination as a condition of anything. Those laws are supported by conservatives and vehemently opposed by Democrats. The same conservatives also support laws allow employees to keep a firearm in their locked car at the place of employment.
It was you who argued that we were trying to limit the “freedoms” of employers. You have now confirmed...it is a matter of law and not freedom. Thank you for making my point. Now you can go back to your job of neglecting patients and denying their freedom to try.
It is a matter of law, you are correct, and your dishonesty is quite humorous. I believe I said you want to engage in law fare and have a judge enforce your will. I also stated that if this is your position, your remedy is to run for office, and then pass a law. Your so called proposal to create laws are set that, proposals. Not law. I think you pain with a broad brush. I can name several prominent conservative who disagree with your position.
And you are trying to limit the freedoms of an employer. just not through legislative action. The laws as it stands in various states that are at will states (which if you had any historic understanding were the original positions supported by conservatives) you would understand that the conservative position is that of private contracts and remedies of torts. You are a neocon by definition espousing this particular line of thought.
Perhaps you should in no particular order:
1. Actually make an argument that is supported by law
2. Actually understand the context of your argument
3. Not falsely claim agreement and you have some how proven a point when you demonstrate only a superficial understanding of the issues
4. Stop employing obviously Alinsky techniques when you are getting your ass kicked in an argument
5. Lay off the insults — the neglecting patient crack is seriously close to libel.
In conclusion, perhaps it would be reasonable to actually make an adult argument instead of implying 6 year old debate strategies.
Have a pleasant evening
No responding to you- what you want to spread your derp propaganda e we thought being challenged?
Do you still refuse to admit the mRNA vaccines are gene therapy?
You’re projecting. Again.
We are working on passing those laws. Laws which respect the freedom and well-being of employees. Those laws are all proposed and supported by conservative R’s, and they are opposed by D’s and RINO R’s here in TX. We know they are RINO’s, because the business lobby RINO R’s have the lowest conservative index scores, barely above the D’s. Our project is part of the same conservative project which restored the right of employees to have their personal weapons locked in their cars. Virtually every true conservative organization (not the neocons, not the business lobby) is on our side.
The rights of employers are not unlimited. Thank you for acknowledging that in your earlier post. There are simply far less onerous health measures to be had than the clot shot bioweapon. No one is opposed to those less onerous measures (sanitation, working from home, keeping vitamin D levels up, extra cleaning in common areas, masks in crowded areas). We’re only opposed to the ones which permanently change our immune systems. And we’re not going to do them, but we will keep our jobs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.