Quite a few commentors here mentioned using gitea or one of it's forks on a private tailnet. That would mean it isn't publicly available and can't be scraped.
Well that's effectively my point? Are you okay with elected officials having the power to write whatever law they wish simply because they were democratically elected?
Surely there must be a line and you aren't granted the elected body control to do literally whatever they want.
> It could be solved by making it a criminal offense to materially mislead the public while holding office
The problem would be how you define that in law and enforce it in the real world.
Its already hard enough to legally distinguish between a lie, misrepresentation, and someone telling what is wrong but they honestly believe to be true given what they know at the time. How do you define that?
And for politicians who are regularly working with state secrets, politically sensitive information, confidential/classified documents, etc how could you ever actually catch them in a lie?
Why healthcare specifically, and where so you draw the line? Are you okay with democratically elected officials making any decision for the people as they see fit?
We were talking about the US here though. Its very different when the government already effectively controls healthcare as a whole, of course they would control or have a large say in hospital bed numbers, for example.
For better or worse the US healthcare system is largely private. If the government isn't running the hospitals or directly paying for all care they shouldn't be stipulating quotas for access to various kinds of care.
I absolutely agree that things in the US seem to be going in a bad direction, but we haven't yet lost our constitution or system of checks and balances.
There's a big difference between the Constitution, law, and doctrine. The Monroe Doctrine, for example, was little more than policy and had nothing to do with law or constitutional rights.
Our checks and balances are still there, the problem we have today is the lack of willingness for those with the power to actually use them. Congress can stop Trump on many of the things he's doing, for example, they just don't want to and have instead continued a decades long pattern of Congress ceding power to executive. The judicial branch has at least stepped in at times, they really don't have to as the Supreme Court can choose to simply not hear a case.
The issue of lying politicians is as old as governments. If we want to focus on Trump as the issue here, and he's a big one, you only have to go back to the pandemic to find politicians on the other side of the aisle blatantly lying to the public without consequence.
Is that the line for regulations you're okay with holding on to? If so you better start regulating how many beds each hospital has as well, if bed demand is the bar you must control bed supply.
I can't speak for the GP obviously, but lumping together all regulation is a mistake. This would be a situation of having regulation protect our rights rather than limit them. That's a huge distinction and the former isn't particularly common today, more often than not if someone is raising concerns over a new regulation its because the regulation is limiting their rights.
Regulations that protect your rights are very different from those that limit them. In this case it would be the former, and no less it would be reinforcing a pretty fundamental right in our system, the right to own property.
I'd be curious further upstream as well. How would it compare from whatever shared point of entry the two approaches would have, say from coming off a boat at a port to the end user rather than just comparing the last mile.
People weren't calling for temporary hospitals being stood up or wings allocated just for unvaccinated people, they were calling for people to be denied care.
Your Ebola example still doesn't hold, the death rate and transmissibility is drastically different between the various colds/flus and Ebola. Not to mention you're justifying blocking individuals from care because we didn't know what we were worrying about yet and because they chose not to take an experimental vaccine using a new technology that was rushed through testing (and reasonably so, I get why they rushed to EUA but that does make it more effective or better understood).
I assume you don't agree with the ACA, medicare for all, or healthcare as a right. All of those ideas are based on ensuring everyone has access to healthcare, and that preexisting conditions can't be considered.
You're raising drastically different scenarios in what I'm pretty sure would be a strawman argument, though yes people with Ebola do still get medical treatment. They are generally isolated and/or treated at a temporary unit setup during an Ebola outbreak, they aren't told no at the door because they're sick.
I think we are saying the same thing in slightly different ways.
Agreed, they found fewer cases of Covid, the disease not the infection, based on self report data from the two test populations. They did not test the entire population for CoV-2 infection, if they did a difference in 8 cases may not have been considered statistically significant depending on what they intended to show.
My claims here have nothing to do with whether vaccines prevent infection or that 100% is a realistic expectation. I'm simply pointing out that what was actually tested and reported in the trials can't be used to support claims of reducing infection or transmissibility. If that's what the OP paper here is doing I call BS.
For one thing, I still don't understand Meta as a business. It seems like Zuck refused to accept owning a boring ad business and keeps trying to act like a tech business.
For another, this seems like a move that happens when the bubble pops.
The dotcom bubble went from having tons of business raising fortunes on the promise of business models the internet unlocks to having few internet businesses left at that scale and a bunch of unused fiber.
Now we're starting to see all the companies claiming AI products will make fortunes to them trying to sell unused hardware capacity.
The paper I shared actually doesn't support the claim of preventing infection.
The trials showed a minimal risk of adverse responses to the injection itself and what appeared to be a reduced rate of symptoms. The trials didn't cover impact on infection rates at all, that would have required proactively testing every participant for infection which wasn't done. The trials only followed self reported symptoms, meaning all the study can indicate is a correlation with reduced symptomatic infection.
Okay got it, I didn't expect that was what you were taking issue with. At least in the US, we were constantly being told by our government leadership that we all needed to take the vaccine to stop the spread.
Fauci, for example, claimed very early on that we needed herd immunity and would get thee with around a 60% vaccination rate. He both knew that number was too low for the hypothesis of herd immunity, raising it as time went on, and that herd immunity requires a treatment to prevent transmission, implying the vaccines were known to do that (they weren't).
More egregiously there was a political push, picked up by the media as well, that basically boiled down to an argument that anyone refusing the vaccine is actively killing old people and children. They would go so far as to say unvaccinated people shouldn't be allowed into hospitals for care for unrelated health conditions.
All that to say, my point was simply that this review paper seems to be making claims that would require research I never saw happen. Sadly the pay wall means I can't read their full claims, but even the overview of their results seem dubious.
Its all well and good to have a blanket statement that politicians shouldn't lie. It entirely different to codify such an aspiration.