-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Wisconsin Supreme Court reverses course, now says Catholic is charity exempt from unemployment tax
- By Michie
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled that a Catholic charity can be exempt from an unemployment insurance tax, affirming an earlier ruling from the United States Supreme Court.
In an order released Monday, the state high court concluded that Catholic Charities Bureau (CCB), Inc. and four sub-entities were “eligible for the religious purposes exemption to unemployment taxation.”
The Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered that the case be sent back to the circuit court level with the instruction to vacate a decision by the Labor and Industry Review Commission (LIRC) against the CCB.
The order also rejects an attempt by state officials to eliminate the religious exemption altogether, according to the religious liberty law firm Becket, which represented the CCB.
Continued below.
www.christianpost.com
In an order released Monday, the state high court concluded that Catholic Charities Bureau (CCB), Inc. and four sub-entities were “eligible for the religious purposes exemption to unemployment taxation.”
The Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered that the case be sent back to the circuit court level with the instruction to vacate a decision by the Labor and Industry Review Commission (LIRC) against the CCB.
The order also rejects an attempt by state officials to eliminate the religious exemption altogether, according to the religious liberty law firm Becket, which represented the CCB.
Continued below.
Wisconsin Supreme Court reverses course, now says Catholic is charity exempt from unemployment tax
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled that a Catholic charity can be exempt from an unemployment insurance tax, affirming an earlier ruling from the United States Supreme Court
www.christianpost.com
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
November Unemployment Rate Unexpectedly Rises to 4.6%
The US economy added 64,000 jobs in November while the unemployment rate rose to 4.6% from 4.4% in September, according to the latest report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Due to the federal government shutdown, data for the unemployment rate series was not collected in October.
The unemployment rate had been forecast to remain steady at 4.4% in November. Meanwhile, nonfarm payroll employment had been forecast to show an increase of 40,000 according to FactSet. The Labor Department reported that the US economy lost 105,000 jobs in October. Job gains were revised down for September to an increase of 108,000 from an originally reported increase of 119,000.
He's doing pretty much what he did the first time around.
Due to the federal government shutdown, data for the unemployment rate series was not collected in October.
The unemployment rate had been forecast to remain steady at 4.4% in November. Meanwhile, nonfarm payroll employment had been forecast to show an increase of 40,000 according to FactSet. The Labor Department reported that the US economy lost 105,000 jobs in October. Job gains were revised down for September to an increase of 108,000 from an originally reported increase of 119,000.
He's doing pretty much what he did the first time around.
Woman fatally shoots man after break-in
- By Oompa Loompa
Yes. Guns saving lives is of no interest.It's sad that this kind of story doesn't really peak my interest at all. Things like this happen so often that when it does come up my first reaction is, "slow news day?"
Upvote
0
RFK Adjusts Hepatitis B Vaccine Recommendations; Democrats Lose Their Minds
- By probinson
- American Politics
- 98 Replies
It does not. The Cochrane review has existed since 2007, and its findings have remain unchanged. Masking simply does not slow respiratory spread, and it doesn't matter if we're talking about paper masks or N95. It never has, it never will.
I highly recommend the Substack "Trust The Evidence", which is written by Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson. Tom is the lead author of the Cochrane masking review. You might find this article particularly interesting, as it addresses the "flaws" you cited above.
Over a year after social media influencer Zeynep Tufekci pressured Cochrane Editor Karla Soares-Weiser to put out a statement that smeared researchers and undermined Cochrane’s review that found masks have little benefit in stopping the spread of viruses, Soares Weiser released a second statement on Friday that announced she would not be making changes to the mask review.
Soares-Weiser’s reversal comes after Tufekci wrote a misleading March 2023 New York Times essay that disparaged the Cochrane mask review and falsely claimed she had “corrected” it. Bouncing off Tufekci’s spurious Times essay, author Laurie Garrett posted on X that the Cochrane authors were “bozos” who had confessed to “fraud.”
Suffice to say, there were no "flaws" in the Cochrane review. Despite blatant lies from everyone up to and including then Director of the CDC, Walensky, no changes were made to the review and it has not been "retracted". There was a coordinated smear campaign against the authors of this review because their data found that the mask mandates did not have a solid evidence base. The article above is a good place to start if you want to see exactly how "experts" react to data that doesn't support their narrative.That's what you're doing., This particular Cochrane review that has existed since 2007 is suddenly "flawed", in your opinion, for some reason. Also, you have to ignore scads of real-world evidence. There was literally nowhere that mask mandates were instituted where transmission was slowed. Not even in retrospect can you find the institution of a mandate and a correlating reduction of viral spread.
Yes. There were tons of "studies" run on masking that supported the mask mandates, like the one I posted above. They gathered data by having people self-report in a telephone survey their masking habits and if they had COVID. Boy, that's some scientific rigor there! But no matter. It arrived that the "right" result, so they published it, and the media trumpeted it as if were the gospel truth.
Or how about the infamous CDC hairdresser study? Two hairdressers wore a mask and no one who they worked on got COVID. This is the foundation of the "science" of masking evidence. Methodology that would get you laughed out of a 5th grade science fair was all of a sudden the standard of evidence for the pandemic.
OTOH, you say that the Cochrane Review has "flaws", as compared to these astounding pieces of cow flop published int he CDC's MMWR. The irony is palpable.
Are you aware of the evidence pyramid? Not every piece of evidence carries the same weight. Guess where the studies that found a benefit to masking sit in that pyramid?
Yes. That's happening right now too. Why did people stop masking? There are always viruses circulation that will result in death for some people. You just don't hear about them 24/7, until the industry has a vaccine to sell you. Do you know how many respiratory viruses there are circulating. Yet we only ever hear about Flu, COVID and RSV. I suppose it's just a funny coincidence that those are also the viruses that have available vaccines.
The truth is, if you really believe in your altruistic stance that you're proposing here, you can NEVER stop masking. Not at any point. There are ALWAYS respiratory viruses floating around that could kill people. Always have been, always will be. So I hope you're "caring" for your neighbor by committing to masking every day and everywhere you go for the rest of your life.
That is not my position. My position is the body of available high-quality evidence says that wearing a mask does absolutely nothing to prevent, nor even slow, the spread of viruses.
I get that you've been convinced that masking is the ultimate altruistic gesture towards others, but it's simply not true.
Well for one thing, improper handling of PPE can actually increase your likelihood of infection. This is well-established, and "experts" warned of this at the beginning of the pandemic before every recommendation flipped almost overnight. Constantly touching your mask brings you in contact with viral particles that otherwise may have fallen harmlessly to the ground, but are now trapped in a mask that you carry with you everywhere you go. Did you watch people touching their masks during the pandemic? Did you see people crumple them up and put them in their purse or stuff them in their glove box, only to pull them back out again and put them back on their face? There are all sorts of downsides to wearing a mask in public.
Secondly, masks give people a false sense of security. By convincing people that they are now "safe": because someone has an ineffective security blanket across their mouth and nose, they are more likely to let down their guard. People who are truly at risk are now convinced that they can put themselves in high-risk situations that they may have otherwise avoided because they're wearing a mask. But it's a bit like telling someone that they'll be safe if they jump out of the airplane with a backpack that has no parachute in it. iIt might look good as you jump out of the plane, but you're in for a nasty surprise when you pull the rip cord.
You've inadvertently hit the nail on the head for why people embraced mask mandates. It was never about evidence of benefit. Not only did the mask serve as a placebo for people who had been subject to relentless fear campaign, but it also made them feel good about themselves because they were "caring for others". They were "doing something". Unfortunately, that "something" they were doing was completely performative and had no real benefit.
Since you don't like the Cochrane review, how about this systematic review of masking by the CDC published in May 2020? I've emphasized the findings relevant to this discussion.
Face Masks
In our systematic review, we identified 10 RCTs that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946–July 27, 2018. In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51–1.20; I2 = 30%, p = 0.25) (Figure 2). One study evaluated the use of masks among pilgrims from Australia during the Hajj pilgrimage and reported no major difference in the risk for laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infection in the control or mask group (33). Two studies in university settings assessed the effectiveness of face masks for primary protection by monitoring the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza among student hall residents for 5 months (9,10). The overall reduction in ILI or laboratory-confirmed influenza cases in the face mask group was not significant in either studies (9,10). Study designs in the 7 household studies were slightly different: 1 study provided face masks and P2 respirators for household contacts only (34), another study evaluated face mask use as a source control for infected persons only (35), and the remaining studies provided masks for the infected persons as well as their close contacts (11–13,15,17). None of the household studies reported a significant reduction in secondary laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the face mask group (11–13,15,17,34,35). Most studies were underpowered because of limited sample size, and some studies also reported suboptimal adherence in the face mask group.
Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids (36). There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.
Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures
Pandemic Influenza—Personal Protective Measures
wwwnc.cdc.gov
Also, just to reiterate what I said earlier, that study also says this:
Proper use of face masks is essential because improper use might increase the risk for transmission.
Upvote
0
