The opinion is here: https://www.oag.state.va.us/files/Opinions/2022/22-004-Youngkin-issued.pdf IANAL but it looks as if this opinion only applies to public colleges and universities. |
Public only, but it’s not binding on them either. It’s purely advisory and has no force of law. |
Boosters DO prevent Omicron transmission. Here's the study, knock yourself out https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.27.21268278v1.full.pdf |
+1 |
Theater 🎭 |
Then why are 2,500 people dying from it every day in the last week or so? |
The Virginia Code cited in it has the force of law - it lists the required immunizations at public universities. Covid isn't one of them. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/23.1-800/ I believe Dillon's Rule doesn't allow for a public university in Virginia to add their own additional requirements. Because it's covered by a state law. |
Just because there's a correlation doesn't necessarily mean cause and effect. I feel like certain wanton behaviors often go hand in hand with the anti-vaxxer mentality, i.e., lack of social distancing and masking. |
+1 And the order pointed out that should the General Assembly vote to add Covid-19 to the required vaccines, they are free to do so. But since they haven't yet, then it is not a requirement. Seems very straightforward to me. |
Boosters may *help* prevent Omicron, but they certainly don't prevent it. The study you cite even states: boosters *reduce* risk by 40-50%. They don't prevent it. Many people who have been sick with Omicron - including me - were fully vaxxed and boosted. DP |
You should read the statistical analysis section. Believe it or not, the people carrying out mulitvariate regression analyses and controlling for multiple factors (age, sex, household clustering) for this study actually understand the difference between correlation and causation. |
The poster was responding to the claim that “boosters don’t protect against omicron.” I get that you want to move the goalposts since that silly statement has been shown to be ridiculous, but no - you don’t get to. |
It says "The estimates are adjusted for age and sex of the primary case, age and sex of the potential secondary case, and size of the household." So, they adjusted for age, sex, size of household. That doesn't factor in wanton anti-vaxxer behaviors (lack of social distancing, lack of masking). Furthermore, it states: "Recently, self testing kits have become widely available for purchase in Denmark. This could influence the results, for instance if individuals that self-test at home refrain from also being tested in public testing facilities, meaning that their test results are not registered in the national databases." Another anti-vaxxer behavior seems to be lack of home testing. Meaning, lack of unreported testing. And finally, the author expresses my exact concern with the data in the section addressing biases. Here you go: "There are likely underlying behavioural drivers for an individual being unvaccinated, which are likely to confound with other risky behaviours that might be expected to increase both transmission and susceptibility to infection (e.g. poor use of face masks, reduced attention to hygiene). The use of registry data limits our inference to associations between transmission/susceptibility and vaccination status of individuals, where part of the association is due to general characteristics of the individuals themselves rather than their vaccination status." I think you are the one who didn't read this! |
Agree, straightforward. Interesting also how meningitis and hep b in statute specifically includes informed consent and right to decline. |
That's not true. Liberty U didn't require it and it was a holy hot mess of covid last fall. |