Washington granted blanket amnesty from prosecution to anyone who participated in the Whiskey Rebellion and pardoned the two persons who had previously been convicted (of treason).
There are more recent examples.
The presidential action forgave two Pennsylvania men sentenced to hang for treason, simultaneously quelling a nascent uprising and proving the power of the chief executive.
I cannot find anything that says he pardoned people not yet indicted.
You have a source?
How about any examples that are not 240 years old?
Thanks
Has an incoming administration ever campaigned / broadcast a specific goal to prosecute someone for political purposes?
The presidential action forgave two Pennsylvania men sentenced to hang for treason, simultaneously quelling a nascent uprising and proving the power of the chief executive.
I cannot find anything that says he pardoned people not yet indicted.
You have a source?
How about any examples that are not 240 years old?
Thanks
Has an incoming administration ever campaigned / broadcast a specific goal to prosecute someone for political purposes?
Alvin Bragg, Letitia James, basically everyone who prosecuted Trump. Was that a real question, or do you have amnesia?
“When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent,” Dr. Fauci said. “Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,’ so I went to 80, 85.”
“We need to have some humility here,” he added. “We really don’t know what the real number is. I think the real range is somewhere between 70 to 90 percent. But, I’m not going to say 90 percent.”
The presidential action forgave two Pennsylvania men sentenced to hang for treason, simultaneously quelling a nascent uprising and proving the power of the chief executive.
I cannot find anything that says he pardoned people not yet indicted.
You have a source?
How about any examples that are not 240 years old?
Thanks
Has an incoming administration ever campaigned / broadcast a specific goal to prosecute someone for political purposes?
“When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent,” Dr. Fauci said. “Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,’ so I went to 80, 85.”
“We need to have some humility here,” he added. “We really don’t know what the real number is. I think the real range is somewhere between 70 to 90 percent. But, I’m not going to say 90 percent.”
Fauci was telling the truth here. Initially we had data from other countries and a cruise ship, and we extrapolated to this country, so there is some guesswork in epidemiology. The initial reproduction number used was 2.2, so we would need 1-1/2.2 or about 55% to reach herd immunity, perhaps more, because the population was not homogeneous. Later the reproduction number was given as about 2.9, so we would need 1-1/2.9 or about 65% for herd immunity.
Unfortunately the public is largely ignorant of how science works, and in particular epidemiology. And that includes most people on this message board.
An incorrect statement that is only incorrect in light of evidence uncovered in the future is not a lie.
Being wrong is not a crime or ~1/2 of letsrun would be in jail.
Is this kind of like a correct statement (natural immunity to COVID is effective) that is only correct in light of evidence *uncovered* in the future (by recalcitrant, hesitant, dogmatic scientists no less) is not truth?
“When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent,” Dr. Fauci said. “Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,’ so I went to 80, 85.”
“We need to have some humility here,” he added. “We really don’t know what the real number is. I think the real range is somewhere between 70 to 90 percent. But, I’m not going to say 90 percent.”
Fauci was telling the truth here. Initially we had data from other countries and a cruise ship, and we extrapolated to this country, so there is some guesswork in epidemiology. The initial reproduction number used was 2.2, so we would need 1-1/2.2 or about 55% to reach herd immunity, perhaps more, because the population was not homogeneous. Later the reproduction number was given as about 2.9, so we would need 1-1/2.9 or about 65% for herd immunity.
Unfortunately the public is largely ignorant of how science works, and in particular epidemiology. And that includes most people on this message board.
"When I saw new surveys I thought, I can nudge this up a bit."
Very scientific.
What was the final number we arrived at again?
Oh yeah the vax doesn't even stop the spread so his argument was completely moot
Unfortunately the public is largely ignorant of how science works, and in particular epidemiology. And that includes most people on this message board.
Practical science is science as it relates to me personally. That is the only science I need to know.
Happily zero-dose unvaccinated after 1452 days of mRNA goop availability.
The whole "natural immunity" thing has been a real manure fest. The whole point all along has been that if we were to reach herd immunity through natural immunity, many millions of people would require hospitalization, and that would have been horrific with COVID.
Their "guesswork" turned into defacto mandates, ridiculous lockdowns, lost years and educations of millions, and a mass psychosis that many still live with.
If your policy recommendations involve "guesswork" and a lot of unknowns, don't present it as "the science" and weld it in wildly unconstitutional ways against the public.
The pro-vaccination/lockdown crowd has a lot of apologizing to do. Part of the process will involve the jailing of many.
Fauci was telling the truth here. Initially we had data from other countries and a cruise ship, and we extrapolated to this country, so there is some guesswork in epidemiology. The initial reproduction number used was 2.2, so we would need 1-1/2.2 or about 55% to reach herd immunity, perhaps more, because the population was not homogeneous. Later the reproduction number was given as about 2.9, so we would need 1-1/2.9 or about 65% for herd immunity.
Unfortunately the public is largely ignorant of how science works, and in particular epidemiology. And that includes most people on this message board.
"When I saw new surveys I thought, I can nudge this up a bit."
Very scientific.
What was the final number we arrived at again?
Oh yeah the vax doesn't even stop the spread so his argument was completely moot
The vaxx sure did slow it down. The vaxx provides your immune system practice responding to any similar virus, so if infected, it can respond quickly, making the virus less lethal, shortening your infectious period, etc. Nothing new here in the world of epidemiology.
To stop the spread we need to drive the reproduction number down below 1.0 (maybe you can explain this to your audience?), which was very difficult with a starting point of about 2.87.
Their "guesswork" turned into defacto mandates, ridiculous lockdowns, lost years and educations of millions, and a mass psychosis that many still live with.
If your policy recommendations involve "guesswork" and a lot of unknowns, don't present it as "the science" and weld it in wildly unconstitutional ways against the public.
The pro-vaccination/lockdown crowd has a lot of apologizing to do. Part of the process will involve the jailing of many.
...then you don't understand basic science, and you want to jail those who do.
Their "guesswork" turned into defacto mandates, ridiculous lockdowns, lost years and educations of millions, and a mass psychosis that many still live with.
If your policy recommendations involve "guesswork" and a lot of unknowns, don't present it as "the science" and weld it in wildly unconstitutional ways against the public.
The pro-vaccination/lockdown crowd has a lot of apologizing to do. Part of the process will involve the jailing of many.
When there is guesswork involved, valid inferences still can be made. It is a bit too abstract of an argument for the readers here, so I won't bother making it.
The whole "natural immunity" thing has been a real manure fest. The whole point all along has been that if we were to reach herd immunity through natural immunity, many millions of people would require hospitalization, and that would have been horrific with COVID.
Did you miss the part where the jab does not stop transmission
When there is guesswork involved, valid inferences still can be made. It is a bit too abstract of an argument for the readers here, so I won't bother making it.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.