Jump to content
Royal Caribbean Blog

DeSantis/Florida wins prelim injunction over CDC


Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, CGTLH said:

Not sure if this has been posted yet.

Here is a copy of the "Time-sensitive motion for stay pending appeal and administrative stay" filed July 7 in the Court of Appeals.

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AjpWMo-t4z28-WmXO6Y3sW2Onwjp

I don't really see that the CDC will win on appeal. Judge Merryday set forth a very convincing brief. Basically he said that CDC overstepped their boundaries and now what that are doing is a little to late. It is my belief that cruising could have started much earlier this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/8/2021 at 7:20 PM, twangster said:

My view about the case and how it has progressed goes beyond cruising.  Cruise ships fell through a crack and the CDC got away with exceeding their powers.  Emboldened by that they ramped it up and it got worse.  Unchallenged after that they extended it and took it up a notch.  No one stopped them.  How giddy they must have been.

I've long said that if the CDC could have, they would have locked us all in our homes very early on.  

The progression of this case has impact beyond cruising because in next public health emergency we would have seen the CDC attempting those types of locks down in so many other aspects of our lives except now they have had their magic undue powers put back in the bottle. They would have looked at how they got away with killing this industry and adapted to take on another.  No airlines left after the next PHE.

It's a major wakeup call for everyone - there was no check or balance to what the CDC did with the cruise industry.  

Look to the future and where the CDC would have gone...

Without this ruling if the CDC didn't like the way a flu season was progressing they would lock down the cruise industry.  

Without this ruling if the CDC didn't like some other virus with negligible impact to society the CDC would lock down the cruise industry.  

Without this ruling we all might find ourselves locked in our home in 20 years time if the government is fearful something might happen.  "Could be a virus next year, better lock up America 'cuz the CDC says so."

That's not freedom and that's not American.  

I consider myself somewhat cynical, but I really do not believe that is what happen or would happen. Everything in this post is my opinion only.  Actually, if very early on we had closed the boarders and gone into a "lockdown" for 4-6 weeks, I believe we would be in much better shape, far fewer people would have died and the actual cost of this pandemic would be much lower.   But very early on this changed from a medical issue to a political one.  I do not think the CDC are a bunch of power hungry people just frothing at the mouth to exert their control over everything.  As for the rules regarding ships, I think they are looking at the potential worst case scenario for the initial cruises.  I believe if the Politicians and Courts had not gotten involved, that the rules would have opened up in a step by step method, unless there were problems.  I think if everyone and their brother had not decided they were experts in every aspect of this virus based on what they read on the internet or heard from their friends, we would be in a much better place.  From the first day, I believe the CDC and Health Departments should have been put in charge, because this is the main reason they even exist.  But none of this happened, a medical issue became a political issue, everyone became experts, wearing a mask went from a minor inconvenience to an attack on our freedom, Vaccines went from being a well tested solution to another attack on our freedoms or some diabolical experimental, untested drug to change us into monsters, track us, or kill us.  Changing the recommendations based on the available science turned experts into liars, except when they didn't change based on the "science" that some people believed, then again, they were liars.  Testing of the vaccine based on decades of medical knowledge and testing suddenly wasn't sufficient, and each rare POSSIBLE side effect (anything that happened to a person after they got the vaccine) became front page news.  I doubt very many people even know why the two month testing period was chosen.  It wasn't random.  I wonder how many people have ever looked into  the background of any drug their doctor has prescribed, actually read the entire label and papers that come with it and then refused to take it because of a possible rare side effect.  If people used the standard they are using for this vaccine, most of them would not take any prescription or even over the counter drug.  We need all of the politicians, Judges, internet experts and wanna be experts to step back and let the CDC and Health departments do their jobs.  As for the cruise lines following their own rules, I think that competition will very quickly erode those rules until something bad happens, and then we will be right back where we are, but with no one in charge to correct things.  But again, these are just my opinions with much of it coming from my knowledge only gathered from the internet, common sense, and how I feel things have developed.  So I am not attempting to change anyone's opinion, just stating my own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MrMarc, the CDC has politized this process. They wrote the CSO sent it to the cruise lines then threw it into a vault. shut the door, spun the lock and were going to completely forget about it until Nov 1, 2021. The evidence is overwhelming. It wasn't until the CLIA sent an appeal to TA and all it members to please contact their representatives to put pressure on them to look into this. Thus many of us received this and did so. Then the mayor of Miami went directly to the CDC to plead her constituents case. Then the State of Florida filed their suit. Only after the politicians got involved did the vault get opened. The CDC based their initial reason for locking out the cruise lines was based to the Diamond Princess ill fated voyage in Jan 2020. Crazy in that nobody knew anything about this disease at this point and 712 got infected and 14 died. Even judge Merryday pointed this out. The arrogance shown by the CDC has been staggering.

Matt forgive us if we are treading on dangerous ground. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MrMarc said:

I consider myself somewhat cynical, but I really do not believe that is what happen or would happen. Everything in this post is my opinion only.  Actually, if very early on we had closed the boarders and gone into a "lockdown" for 4-6 weeks, I believe we would be in much better shape, far fewer people would have died and the actual cost of this pandemic would be much lower.  

 

The borders were closed and we were in lockdown for 7 weeks here in Florida.  We were one of the first states to get out of lockdown.  Most states were in lockdown for MUCH LONGER.  Where in the US do you live that wasn’t in lockdown for at least 6 weeks?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, ChrisK2793 said:

Where in the US do you live that wasn’t in lockdown for at least 6 weeks?

the midwest.  Not anywhere near what I would call a lock down, when home improvement stores, department stores, sports stores, best buy, etc. still open, airplanes still flying, travel not really restricted inside our country.  Again and as @MrMarc just my opinion, not really a lockdown.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ChrisK2793 said:

 

The borders were closed and we were in lockdown for 7 weeks here in Florida.  We were one of the first states to get out of lockdown.  Most states were in lockdown for MUCH LONGER.  Where in the US do you live that wasn’t in lockdown for at least 6 weeks?

 

That was after the spread had already gotten out of hand, and we are not a rule following culture, so there were a lot of people not doing it.  Defiance of authority is practically part of our DNA, nothing new.   I think to have been effective, it would have had to happen earlier and much more uniformly.  It's all 20/20 hindsight.  The fact is  it is practically impossible for the Federal government to actually issue such an order.  That's the same reason we never had a Federal mask mandate, and the Courts ruled that the CDC did not have the power to issue orders related to eviction.  There are many, many advantages to our form of government, but there are a few drawbacks as well.  But I think the advantages far outweigh the drawbacks by far. In this particular situation, I think a central government has certain advantages.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cruisinghawg said:

Matt forgive us if we are treading on dangerous ground. 

Unless someone else is getting upset, I think this is a good discussion regarding how the CSO could have been avoided or whether or not it should be affecting our cruising now, no one upset that I can see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MrMarc said:

That was after the spread had already gotten out of hand, and we are not a rule following culture, so there were a lot of people not doing it.  Defiance of authority is practically part of our DNA, nothing new.   I think to have been effective, it would have had to happen earlier and much more uniformly.  It's all 20/20 hindsight.  The fact is  it is practically impossible for the Federal government to actually issue such an order.  That's the same reason we never had a Federal mask mandate, and the Courts ruled that the CDC did not have the power to issue orders related to eviction.  There are many, many advantages to our form of government, but there are a few drawbacks as well.  But I think the advantages far outweigh the drawbacks by far. In this particular situation, I think a central government has certain advantages.  


We locked down before most of the rest of the world ……. We also closed the border to anybody (except US citizens returning) from CHINA coming in the country at the very end of January.  If you remember, at that time certain politicians screamed and wailed that it was RACIST to not let people come here from China ……. A certain high profile female politician who likes to rip up speeches and get her hair done inside salons that were forced to be closed for all others ……was even on tv dancing in a crowd and telling people to come to a festival in San Francisco's China Town at the very end of February…… only 2 weeks before the lockdown began.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, ChrisK2793 said:

We also closed the border to anybody from CHINA coming in the country at the very end of January.

Except we didn't.  Flying home from Allure's transatlantic in March 2020 when I arrived in DFW I was placed into a room with travelers from all over world arriving into DFW including flights from China - for three hours.  This was the CDC's "great idea" to stop the spread.

When CBP asked me if I had any symptoms etc. I replied "It's more likely that if I got COVID on this trip it happened right here being locked in a room with people arriving from everywhere including China."  His response... "You and me both."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, ChrisK2793 said:


We locked down before most of the rest of the world ……. We also closed the border to anybody from CHINA coming in the country at the very end of January.  If you remember, at that time certain politicians screamed and wailed that it was RACIST to not let people come here from China ……. A certain high profile female politician who likes to rip up speeches and get her hair done inside salons that were forced to be closed for all others ……was even on tv dancing in a crowd and telling people to come to a festival in San Francisco's China Town at the very end of February…… only 2 weeks before the lockdown began.

 

 

Yes, I remember.  That's why I say that this medical issue has been a political issue from the very beginning.  There have been so many missteps from both sides, and we have had to suffer with the results.   As  I said, in this particular situation, a more "consistent" government and central control would have had advantages, but the drawbacks are not worth it.  A little less bickering and a little more cooperation would have been nice, but that was not going to happen where we were/are.  I firmly believe that this, like all of the other troubled times in our country will eventually become less antagonistic at some point.  Our system is designed for it.  It might look a bit messy at times, but over time it smooths out the bumps, and in general the country comes out better.  I will admit that this pandemic looked like a possible unifying event, but sadly no.  But something will happen or time will bring us back, or at least closer, together.  But to relate this to cruises, so I don't break the rules, regardless of the CDC, CSO, lawsuits and such, the industry is on the way to recovering and we will get back to "discussing" chair hogs and shorts on formal night.  It's just a matter of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MrMarc said:

Unless someone else is getting upset, I think this is a good discussion regarding how the CSO could have been avoided or whether or not it should be affecting our cruising now, no one upset that I can see.

You understand that Covid was in the US in December 2019, don’t you? 
 

you keep saying we should have locked down earlier. But when would you have? And have you looked at the data from lockdowns across the globe? Lockdowns do not work. 
 

in the US, we cannot totally lockdown a free society. Essential workers still had to go to work. The government can’t keep printing money to sustain the kind of lockdowns you seem to be advocating. 
 

as far as medical “experts” go, they ignored years of established science in order to try the lockdown experiment which has caused more damage than Covid. And we will continue to experience the collateral damage of lockdowns for years to come. What we have done to our children in the US because of lockdowns is shameful. 
 

And because Covid happened in an election year, of course it was politicized. 
 

Unelected health bureaucrats are not to  establish national policy. Zero risk is not a viable national policy when it comes to viruses. Our elected officials failed us. Covid risk and mitigation is just one of 100s of considerations when considering national policy. The government in this case picked winners and losers during lockdowns which caused many small businesses to go under while large corporations thrived. Poverty is a major factor  in ones health. 
 

Your continued advocating of lockdowns totally ignore the data from around the world. They do not work. Locking down harder is not the answer. Protecting the vulnerable was the answer but yet we shoved Covid infected seniors back into nursing homes which killed more seniors. Mask mandates did zero good. See Japan now and tell me masks work. New Zealand and Australia, 2 island nations had some of the hardest multiple lockdowns but yet Covid still is spreading there. I’m sorry but data and science is not on your side 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, UNCFanatik said:

You understand that Covid was in the US in December 2019, don’t you? 
 

you keep saying we should have locked down earlier. But when would you have? And have you looked at the data from lockdowns across the globe? Lockdowns do not work. 
 

in the US, we cannot totally lockdown a free society. Essential workers still had to go to work. The government can’t keep printing money to sustain the kind of lockdowns you seem to be advocating. 
 

as far as medical “experts” go, they ignored years of established science in order to try the lockdown experiment which has caused more damage than Covid. And we will continue to experience the collateral damage of lockdowns for years to come. What we have done to our children in the US because of lockdowns is shameful. 
 

And because Covid happened in an election year, of course it was politicized. 
 

Unelected health bureaucrats are not to  establish national policy. Zero risk is not a viable national policy when it comes to viruses. Our elected officials failed us. Covid risk and mitigation is just one of 100s of considerations when considering national policy. The government in this case picked winners and losers during lockdowns which caused many small businesses to go under while large corporations thrived. Poverty is a major factor  in ones health. 
 

Your continued advocating of lockdowns totally ignore the data from around the world. They do not work. Locking down harder is not the answer. Protecting the vulnerable was the answer but yet we shoved Covid infected seniors back into nursing homes which killed more seniors. Mask mandates did zero good. See Japan now and tell me masks work. New Zealand and Australia, 2 island nations had some of the hardest multiple lockdowns but yet Covid still is spreading there. I’m sorry but data and science is not on your side 

No, I am not going to take the bait.  Yu know that there are answers to each of your points, but you do not agree with them.  Let's keep this civil and understand that there are disagreements about who and how this situation should have been handled.  And people on both sides say science in on their side, because depending on which science you look at and how you interpret it, there are results that can be used to support both sides.  But once it became politicized, the science really has not mattered as much as it should have.  I am not here to say I am right or you are wrong.  Please don't get this whole thing deleted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, MrMarc said:But once it became politicized, the science really has not mattered as much as it should have.  I am not here to say I am right or you are wrong.  Please don't get this whole thing deleted.

What science? Please tell me? 
 

we were told mask didn’t work

we were told mask not only work but the former CDC director told us mask were more effective than vaccines.

we were told Covid spread easily outdoors so we were told that playgrounds, parks, beaches, etc needed to be closed for our safety. 
 

we were told Covid could spread on surfaces so we were told to sanitize like crazy. 
 

we were told asymptomatic spread wasn’t a major driver until we were told it was. 
 

we were told and continue to be told that each new variant is THE killer variant

we were told at one time that the morbidity rate was up over 3%
 

Fauci told us to disagree with him was to disagree with science itself while Fauci flip flopped so many times 

scientists told us that when Texas dropped their mask mandates that Covid cases would explode and excessive death would follow

Lastly, we were told by the scientist that there was no way Covid escaped from a lab

So which science hasn’t mattered? 
 

again… we have a years worth of data now. We have to learn from the mistakes of politicized science and never let them happen again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, UNCFanatik said:

What science? Please tell me? 
 

we were told mask didn’t work

we were told mask not only work but the former CDC director told us mask were more effective than vaccines.

we were told Covid spread easily outdoors so we were told that playgrounds, parks, beaches, etc needed to be closed for our safety. 
 

we were told Covid could spread on surfaces so we were told to sanitize like crazy. 
 

we were told asymptomatic spread wasn’t a major driver until we were told it was. 
 

we were told and continue to be told that each new variant is THE killer variant

we were told at one time that the morbidity rate was up over 3%
 

Fauci told us to disagree with him was to disagree with science itself while Fauci flip flopped so many times 

scientists told us that when Texas dropped their mask mandates that Covid cases would explode and excessive death would follow

Lastly, we were told by the scientist that there was no way Covid escaped from a lab

So which science hasn’t mattered? 
 

again… we have a years worth of data now. We have to learn from the mistakes of politicized science and never let them happen again. 

No.  Please.  You want me to say your are right and I am wrong. Ok.  You can be right and I will be wrong.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, UNCFanatik said:

What science? Please tell me? 
 

we were told mask didn’t work

we were told mask not only work but the former CDC director told us mask were more effective than vaccines.

we were told Covid spread easily outdoors so we were told that playgrounds, parks, beaches, etc needed to be closed for our safety. 
 

we were told Covid could spread on surfaces so we were told to sanitize like crazy. 
 

we were told asymptomatic spread wasn’t a major driver until we were told it was. 
 

we were told and continue to be told that each new variant is THE killer variant

we were told at one time that the morbidity rate was up over 3%
 

Fauci told us to disagree with him was to disagree with science itself while Fauci flip flopped so many times 

scientists told us that when Texas dropped their mask mandates that Covid cases would explode and excessive death would follow

Lastly, we were told by the scientist that there was no way Covid escaped from a lab

So which science hasn’t mattered? 
 

again… we have a years worth of data now. We have to learn from the mistakes of politicized science and never let them happen again. 

I think you're mischaracterizing the sequence of events and what was actually said, and in general what we later learned was behind some of the poor statements made up front. Mistakes can be made, as long as when identified they get corrected. At least some of the things that happened earlier were corrected. People seem to love to grasp at the whole mask thing as being unnecessary, often pointing to cases where someone wore a mask and was infected, and that's simply not true and a mischaracterization of the benefit. Masks, even improperly worn masks, or poorly made masks/masks of wrong materials, still  reduce potential for spread of COVID, and we most certainly have seen how that affects more common things like the spread of flu, which practically was non-existent this past season.

We do seem today to lack some concept of what level of spread/infection may be acceptable to have, and in such cases, where that spread is of just minor symptoms, to what extent that is acceptable as well. We will certainly never be quite 100% rid of this, especially with the behavior of those choosing to ignore guidance and vaccination recommendations. But where is there to be a line between an acceptable level of infection versus trying to stem the infection/spread as much as possible? And frankly where do we generally leave those choosing to go unprotected/unvaccinated out of some of those equations, too, since apparently as a society we currently are letting people do that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, dswallow said:

I think you're mischaracterizing the sequence of events and what was actually said, and in general what we later learned was behind some of the poor statements made up front. Mistakes can be made, as long as when identified they get corrected. At least some of the things that happened earlier were corrected. People seem to love to grasp at the whole mask thing as being unnecessary, often pointing to cases where someone wore a mask and was infected, and that's simply not true and a mischaracterization of the benefit. Masks, even improperly worn masks, or poorly made masks/masks of wrong materials, still  reduce potential for spread of COVID, and we most certainly have seen how that affects more common things like the spread of flu, which practically was non-existent this past season.

We do seem today to lack some concept of what level of spread/infection may be acceptable to have, and in such cases, where that spread is of just minor symptoms, to what extent that is acceptable as well. We will certainly never be quite 100% rid of this, especially with the behavior of those choosing to ignore guidance and vaccination recommendations. But where is there to be a line between an acceptable level of infection versus trying to stem the infection/spread as much as possible? And frankly where do we generally leave those choosing to go unprotected/unvaccinated out of some of those equations, too, since apparently as a society we currently are letting people do that?

I would suggest you read up on viral interference. Masks didn’t cause the flu to go away this year. Covid did. 
 

https://medium.com/illumination-curated/the-unexpected-case-of-the-disappearing-flu-64fd1fa5e909

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, UNCFanatik said:

I would suggest you read up on viral interference. Masks didn’t cause the flu to go away this year. Covid did. 
 

https://medium.com/illumination-curated/the-unexpected-case-of-the-disappearing-flu-64fd1fa5e909

 

 

 

 

 

Nothing on medium.com should be considered trustworthy. Find another source, perhaps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, dswallow said:

I think you're mischaracterizing the sequence of events and what was actually said, and in general what we later learned was behind some of the poor statements made up front. Mistakes can be made, as long as when identified they get corrected. At least some of the things that happened earlier were corrected. People seem to love to grasp at the whole mask thing as being unnecessary, often pointing to cases where someone wore a mask and was infected, and that's simply not true and a mischaracterization of the benefit. Masks, even improperly worn masks, or poorly made masks/masks of wrong materials, still  reduce potential for spread of COVID, and we most certainly have seen how that affects more common things like the spread of flu, which practically was non-existent this past season.

We do seem today to lack some concept of what level of spread/infection may be acceptable to have, and in such cases, where that spread is of just minor symptoms, to what extent that is acceptable as well. We will certainly never be quite 100% rid of this, especially with the behavior of those choosing to ignore guidance and vaccination recommendations. But where is there to be a line between an acceptable level of infection versus trying to stem the infection/spread as much as possible? And frankly where do we generally leave those choosing to go unprotected/unvaccinated out of some of those equations, too, since apparently as a society we currently are letting people do that?


Here’s a link to a 2016 study published but the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT …… the conclusion was that surgical masks (better masks than cloth or paper masks) made you MORE LIKELY to catch a virus 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4868605/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, dswallow said:

Nothing on medium.com should be considered trustworthy. Find another source, perhaps.

Ok… let’s see the randomized control trials that show the effectiveness of masks..

let’s see the proof masks totally stopped the flu this year but couldn’t stop Covid. 
 

I know it’s easier to believe in the magic of a cloth mask to be effective against an aerosolized virus. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, ChrisK2793 said:


Here’s a link to a 2016 study published but the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT …… the conclusion was that surgical masks (better masks than cloth or paper masks) made you MORE LIKELY to catch a virus 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4868605/

 

Ok, I can't resist this one.  It just doesn't say what you want it to:

Conclusion

Although N95 respirators appeared to have a protective advantage over surgical masks in laboratory settings, our meta-analysis showed that there were insufficient data to determine definitively whether N95 respirators are superior to surgical masks in protecting health care workers against transmissible acute respiratory infections in clinical settings. Additional, large RCTs are needed to detect a potentially clinically important difference owing to small event rates. Initial guidelines on preventing acute respiratory infection relied on surrogate exposure data and data extrapolated from the protection of health care workers against tuberculosis because clinical evidence did not exist at that time.58,59 Randomized controlled trials conducted in clinical settings represent the most valid information to evaluate the effectiveness of N95 respirators. They are more relevant to real clinical situations and report actual outcomes in health care workers, and therefore they are the best evidence on effectiveness to inform policy-making

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, dswallow said:

Nothing on medium.com should be considered trustworthy. Find another source, perhaps.

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
 

We did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility (Figure 2). However, as with hand hygiene, face masks might be able to reduce the transmission of other infections and therefore have value in an influenza pandemic when healthcare resources are stretched.
 

Evidence from RCTs of hand hygiene or face masks did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza, and limited evidence was available on other environmental measures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, UNCFanatik said:

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
 

We did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility (Figure 2). However, as with hand hygiene, face masks might be able to reduce the transmission of other infections and therefore have value in an influenza pandemic when healthcare resources are stretched.
 

Evidence from RCTs of hand hygiene or face masks did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza, and limited evidence was available on other environmental measures.

Please, read what the people in the study actually concluded from the metastudy.  Don't take parts of the overanalysis because you like what it says.  This was not an actual study, it was a study of other studies. They concluded that more research was needed to find an answer.

Abstract

There were 3 influenza pandemics in the 20th century, and there has been 1 so far in the 21st century. Local, national, and international health authorities regularly update their plans for mitigating the next influenza pandemic in light of the latest available evidence on the effectiveness of various control measures in reducing transmission. Here, we review the evidence base on the effectiveness of nonpharmaceutical personal protective measures and environmental hygiene measures in nonhealthcare settings and discuss their potential inclusion in pandemic plans. Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza. We similarly found limited evidence on the effectiveness of improved hygiene and environmental cleaning. We identified several major knowledge gaps requiring further research, most fundamentally an improved characterization of the modes of person-to-person transmission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One more quote from the study, and I am done.  Why would people who say the vaccine hasn't been tested enough rely on studies that say:

Most studies were underpowered because of limited sample size, and some studies also reported suboptimal adherence in the face mask group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...