DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Covid ~ Wave After Wave ~ Part 6

You haven't really bee keeping up with the new Delta variant have you? The average age of deaths has decreased and the factor of underlying conditions has decreased as well among the dying.

Covid-19 Deaths in Delta Surge Trend Younger in U.S.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-19-de...ple-11631525400

j/c:

The unmistakable ivermectin miracle in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh

Uttar Pradesh might sound obscure to most Americans, but it is the most populated state in India, with urban areas that rival the most densely populated cities in the U.S. Yet, miraculously, despite housing a population of 240 million people, this northern state has been averaging only 24 cases and 0-2 deaths per day in recent months. Despite its size — roughly 73% of the U.S. population — it ranked dead last in cases per capita last week among India's 36 states. What gives?

The answer likely lies in the 10-letter "I-word" that you are not allowed to mention on social media: ivermectin. Evidently, the global medical junta doesn't like the over 60 studies vouching for the efficacy of ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2, especially when used early, but there is something better than a study: pure reality of lived experience.

Last year, the northern state of Uttar Pradesh began dispensing ivermectin liberally and encouraging people to take it early on and even preventively. As Trial Site News reported earlier this year, "By the end of 2020, Uttar Pradesh — which distributed free ivermectin for home care — had the second-lowest fatality rate in India at 0.26 per 100,000 residents in December. Only the state of Bihar, with 128 million residents, was lower, and it, too, recommends ivermectin."

More:

https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-...f-uttar-pradesh

COVID Patient at Center of Ivermectin Debate at Chicago-Area Hospital Dies

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/co...spital/2611024/

Merck Statement on Ivermectin use During the COVID-19 Pandemic

https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/

Ivermectin for Covid-19: abundance of hype, dearth of evidence

https://www.statnews.com/2021/08/25/ivermectin-for-covid-19-abundance-of-hype-dearth-of-evidence/

Even if this was the only benefit, it's not a trivial one.

Hospitals' capability to treat non-COVID patients is compromised when they are overrun with COVID patients. Also, many of the revenue-generating procedures that hospitals offer and rely on to pay the bills are paused. So you have a hospital that's at or over capacity and still hemorrhaging money.

Well, the 10 minutes to 5 hours was pretty accurate.

Took about 2 hours.

Seems the Indian Government disagrees:

Govt drops Ivermectin, HCQ and favipiravir from Covid-19 treatment list

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-new...3058343019.html


It kills me that so many are afraid of the needle. Grown ass adults spending hundreds of hours seeking reasons NOT to get vaccinated for fear of needles... It has to be that unless they are mindless sheep dying for an ideology, or stupid stubborn to the point of calamity... not much else really makes sense in light of all the facts we now have. smh

Why else would blaze propaganda put this piece out AFTER the INDIAN Government came out against it? Purely agenda driven drivel for those still grasping at straws on the right... here's a clue, Donny LIED. Covid Kills. Sticking a light up your ass won't save you. Drinking bleach won't save you. BUT the vaccine will save you... at the very least the vaccine is YOUR BEST CHANCE. People are so damn stupid to believe this crap from the right.

That really sucks man. May she rest in peace.

arch, took you off ignore when I seen dl05's post. Though we could try getting along again. My condolences to you and yours.

Sorry to hear that Arch. Thoughts and prayers.

Thanks.

No condolences needed for me. I only knew her. My bro in law and his 2 siblings were there. It was their mother.

this appears to be a blocked article you have to pay to see.

So your trying to tell us that if you were told a second vest would increase your chance of survival, you wouldn't wear it?

actually, the Cleveland Clinic did a study and said that a vaccine does not do anything more or give additional benefits if you already have the antibodies from having Covid.


but... #Science

j/k
It seems like finally my mother in law will be coming home from the hospital tomorrow.
Her and my father in law took my nephew to a hockey tournament almost 3 weeks ago. Both caught covid-my nephew came back negative. Both my in laws are double vaxxed.

My father in law has good days and bad-but mostly coughing and really tired.

My mother in law is immune compromised and has heart issues She was admitted to the hospital 8 days ago with horrible cough, vitals all out of whack. in the hospital they found she had some fluid in her lungs, and a little bit of inflammation around her heart and kidneys. But most of her issues were her vitals and fluid retention. They ran all kinds of tests, checking her kidneys, heart and to see if she had a heart attack. Her vitals still were out of whack until yesterday. She started to come around and stabilize so they were going to give her one more round of bloodwork today and if all is good, she is going home tomorrow.

I have told my wife a dozen times since her mom went in-if she was unvaxxed, she would be gone by now.

Incorrect. Happy to provide an update on this study you are citing (again)...

Cleveland Clinic recommends those who are eligible receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

In June, we shared research that provided insight into how the immune system protects the body after a confirmed COVID-19 infection. The study followed Cleveland Clinic caregivers over five months as the vaccination process was beginning. The data showed that the vaccine was extremely effective in preventing COVID-19 infection. In addition, during the study, none of the employees who had confirmed positive PCR tests and remained unvaccinated were re-infected. It’s important to note that this study was conducted in late 2020 and early 2021, before the emergence of the Delta variant.

More research is needed. We do not know how long the immune system will protect itself against re-infection after COVID-19, as our study only looked at individuals over a five-month period, or how well-protected previously infected individuals are against variants. It is also important to keep in mind that this study was conducted in a population that was younger and healthier than the general population.

It is safe to receive the COVID-19 vaccine even if you have previously tested positive, and we recommend all those who are eligible receive it.

https://newsroom.clevelandclinic.org/202...ction-research/

So, the pr/marketing people issued a statement because the results of the study have gotten so much attention and they were being pressured into it.

Got it.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com...ers-11631726504

FDA Says Covid-19 Vaccines Remain Effective Without Boosters.
Agency scientists express skepticism that an apparent diminished protection is rendering the vaccines less effective.

Snippets of the article.

The Food and Drug Administration said vaccines cleared in the U.S. currently provide sufficient protection against severe disease and death from Covid-19 without additional doses, potentially complicating the Biden administration’s deliberations over the need for booster shots.

The findings the FDA released on Wednesday could complicate that decision. One possible outcome would be for the panel to recommend booster shots for now to only certain groups, such as healthcare workers or people 65 and older, according to people familiar with the matter.

“Overall, data indicate that currently U.S.-licensed or authorized Covid-19 vaccines still afford protection against severe Covid-19 disease and death in the United States,” the scientists wrote.

The FDA’s assessment appeared to indicate it might not endorse a widespread booster campaign for now, while Pfizer’s briefing report said such an approach is necessary because of data from Israel and other sources indicating that vaccine efficacy is waning.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/massive-study-israel-suggests-older-210000825.html


A massive study from Israel suggests older adults were far less likely to develop severe COVID-19 after a booster shot, but the finding carries major limitations

Andrew Dunn

Wed, September 15, 2021, 5:00 PM·4 min read

An Israeli receives a coronavirus vaccine from medical staff at a COVID-19 vaccination center in Tel Aviv, Israel, Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021. Sebastian Scheiner/APMore

A third dose of Pfizer's coronavirus vaccine dramatically reduces the risk of infection and severe illness for older adults, a new study found.

A team of researchers in Israel published the findings Wednesday in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Still, an expert urged caution on interpreting the findings, saying the study has major limitations.

See more stories on Insider's business page.

Older adults in Israel who received a booster shot of Pfizer's coronavirus vaccine were far less likely to get infected or develop severe illness, a massive study published on Wednesday found.

Including more than 1.1 million people who are 60 and older, the study looked at thousands of infections and hundreds of cases of severe illness, providing some of the most compelling evidence yet on the value of booster shots.

Israel started offering booster doses to its older population on July 30, and a group of researchers analyzed national healthcare records through the month of August.

Israeli study shows boosters cut the risk of infection and severe cases of COVID-19

Scroll to continue with contentAd

The main finding was the older population, when boosted, was 11 times less likely to get infected and 19.5 times less likely to get severely ill compared to similar people who had received two doses but not a booster shot.

The study is likely to be influential, because its publication comes just two days before the Food and Drug Administration convenes an independent expert panel to discuss Pfizer's application to give booster shots in the US. Israeli health officials are scheduled to present findings from their booster campaign at that Friday meeting, and US health officials have pointed to Israel's experience to bolster their argument for booster shots.

The Biden administration has already said it plans to start offering booster shots to the general public on September 20, depending on OK's from the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In the Israeli study, the group that didn't get boosters recorded 4,439 infections and 294 severe illnesses. The booster group had 934 infections and 29 severe cases. The risk reduction rates accounted for the fact that the two groups were not even in size, as far more people joined the booster group over time.

The data should be viewed with caution

- ADVERTISEMENT -

The result that booster shots reduced the risk of severe illness by nearly 20-fold is surprising, and should be viewed with some skepticism, said Ellie Murray, an epidemiologist at Boston University.

The study has major limitations, she said. Most notably, the researchers observed the real world, rather than testing a booster under more controlled conditions. This means there can be a lot of factors that could skew the results.

As one example, the group of people who are first in line to get boosted may be more cautious with other virus-prevention methods, like masking or social distancing. They could be less likely to get infected for those reasons, instead.

Additionally, the study has a very limited follow-up time, and doesn't show how long protection from boosters may last. That's an essential question in figuring our whether a booster campaign is worth launching.

The study's limited duration may skew its findings. Researchers started counting cases for the booster group only when they are 12 days removed from the third dose.

It can take up to a month on average for a person to go from exposed to infected to seriously ill, Murray said. Therefore, the study may not include enough follow-up time to show the true effect of the boosters.

There aren't any high-quality studies on booster shots

"It's not clear to me that there's anywhere near enough follow-up time, even for the earliest boosters," Murray said.

"All of these problems together make it really hard to know how much we can trust that number that comes out of the study," Murray added.

The broader challenge is that there's an absence of high-quality data that provides better answers to these questions. The leading vaccine developers are not running randomized, controlled trials testing booster doses against a placebo and seeing which group fares better in the long run. Instead, drugmakers have run small studies, boosting a few hundred people and finding an elevated immune response, which may suggest but not prove better protection, particularly against severe illness.

The Israeli researchers attempted to account for a number of potential confounding factors, including demographic differences between the boosted and non-boosted populations in Israel. They analyzed the data with several techniques that produced slightly different numbers but the same overall result: a massive reduction in infection risk, lying somewhere between 10-times and 13-times lower for the boosted population, depending on the analysis performed.

Foundthis articlefascinating.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/law-vaccine-exemptions-religious-liberty-121549470.html

What’s the law on vaccine exemptions? A religious liberty expert explains

Douglas Laycock, Professor of Law, School of Law, University of Virginia

Wed, September 15, 2021, 8:15 AM·7 min read


For Americans wary of COVID-19 vaccine mandates, like the sweeping requirements President Joe Biden announced Sept. 9, 2021, it seems there are plenty of leaders offering ways to get exemptions – especially religious ones.

No major organized religious group has officially discouraged the vaccine, and many, like the Catholic Church, have explicitly encouraged them. Yet pastors from New York to California have offered letters to help their parishioners - or sometimes anyone who asks – avoid the shots.

Scroll to continue with contentAd

These developments point to deep confusion over how to win a religious exemption. So what are they, and is the government even required to offer the exemptions in the first place?

Many schools, businesses and governments requiring vaccination have offered religious exemptions. Some are loath to challenge people’s claims that getting the shot goes against their beliefs for fear of being sued, but organizations have come up with a variety of ways to assess claimants’ sincerity.

But the legal basis of Americans’ supposed right to a religious exemption to vaccination is less clear than such policies’ popularity would suggest.

As a lawyer and scholar who focuses on religious liberties, I have supported religious exemptions for a baker who refused to create a cake for a same-sex wedding, a family-owned business that refused to provide emergency contraception to its employees, a Muslim prisoner who was obligated to grow a beard and many others.

- ADVERTISEMENT -

Even so, I believe that under the general law of religious liberty – including the Constitution and state and federal religious freedom laws – the government has an easy case to refuse religious exemptions from vaccines against infectious disease.

Proving ‘interest’

There are a variety of ways to present a religious liberty claim, each with a different set of rules.

The most stringent standard is that the government should not require people to violate their conscience without a compelling reason.

The Supreme Court has never been clear about the full range of what counts as “compelling,” but some cases are clear. The government has a compelling interest in preventing significant threats to other people’s health, and especially so in a pandemic. The unvaccinated endanger people who are immunosuppressed or cannot be vaccinated because of their age or any other medical reason. The unvaccinated also endanger people who are vaccinated because no vaccination is 100% effective, as is evident from the number of breakthrough COVID-19 infections in the U.S.

Until last month, no state or federal court had ever granted a religious exemption when the government had to demonstrate compelling interest in requiring a vaccine. Now, a federal judge has granted a temporary restraining order to prevent Western Michigan University, a public school, from requiring its student-athletes to be vaccinated. This is a preliminary opinion and seems unlikely to stand up through further proceedings and appeal, since every judge to encounter such an issue in the past has ruled the other way.

The Supreme Court’s current interpretation of the Constitution does not always require a compelling interest.

Under the current law of the Constitution, people have no right to a religious exemption from a rule unless there is also a secular exception or gap in coverage that would undermine the government’s interests just as much. If there isn’t such a secular exception, the government doesn’t have to show any reason at all to refuse religious exemptions.

Usually the only secular exception to vaccine requirements is for “medical contraindications,” meaning that a vaccine would harm the recipient - for example, if someone is allergic to an ingredient in the vaccine.

But these medical exceptions don’t undermine the government’s interest in saving lives, preventing serious illness or preserving hospital capacity. By avoiding medical complications, those exceptions actually serve the government’s interests.

People rally at a demonstration against COVID-19 vaccination mandates on Aug. 25, 2021, in New York. AP Photo/Mary AltafferMore

Offering exemptions

In some states, however, the situation is more complicated. Most states explicitly authorize religious exemptions to vaccination, and sometimes philosophical exemptions as well – regardless of the government’s compelling interests.

Those state laws could not protect anyone from a federal vaccine mandate, and many of them only apply to certain groups – usually schoolchildren. But they could protect people from mandates from their state or local government.

Many private employers requiring vaccines offer religious exemptions, too. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires businesses to accommodate workers’ religious practice as long as they do not cause “undue hardship” to the employer. But the Supreme Court has interpreted “undue hardship” to mean anything more than a minimal expense, meaning employers don’t need a reason anywhere near as strong as a compelling interest. So employers do not have to allow religious exemptions to their employees.

Still, many employers and governments alike have been reluctant to challenge religious exemption claims. When it comes to vaccines against childhood diseases, where the danger did not seem great or immediate, many groups have just taken people’s word for it if they say their religious views prevent vaccination.

Backing up beliefs

There is evidence that many claims of religious objections to vaccination are false, particularly given the large anti-vaccine movement in the U.S.

Law professor Dorit Rubinstein Reiss has compiled anecdotal and survey evidence that most claims for refusing school vaccination requirements on religious grounds are false. The objectors really do object to vaccination, but their reasons are not religious. Meanwhile, opposing COVID-19 vaccinations has become a matter of political identity for many on the political right.

These factors could mean a flood of false religious claims. And whenever that situation arises under the federal law of religious exemptions, the Supreme Court has refused them.

The court rarely talks about this explicitly, but there is a compelling interest in not having a general policy’s effectiveness undermined by thousands or millions of claimed religious objections. That’s part of the reason why the court has refused constitutional protection for religious objections to paying taxes, or serving in the military, or, back in the desegregation era, integrating restaurants.

It is very hard for judges to determine religious sincerity, and mostly they don’t try. But when there are likely to be many exemption claims – both true and false – courts reject them because the difficult task of judging the sincerity of one or a few claimants becomes impossible when there are thousands or millions.

Challenges ahead?

Still, some claims are probably sincere. One question to ask people claiming religious objections to the COVID-19 vaccines - whether on cross-examination in a courtroom or arguing at a meeting of your local school board – is whether they or their children are vaccinated against other diseases. Even if the answer is “no,” however, that may point to longstanding anti-vaccination views rather than sincere religious objections.

Some Catholics object to COVID-19 vaccinations because decades-old fetal cell lines were used in the vaccine research. If that is their sincere religious belief, it doesn’t matter that Pope Francis disagrees.

[Over 100,000 readers rely on The Conversation’s newsletter to understand the world. Sign up today.]

Still, even when religious objections are sincere, the government has a compelling interest in overriding them and insisting that everyone be vaccinated. And that overrides any claim under state or federal constitutions or religious liberty legislation. It is irrelevant to state statutes that explicitly grant vaccine exemptions with no exceptions for compelling government interests. But federal vaccination requirements override those state laws.

With mandates – and vocal objections – looking poised to grow, the United States could see vaccination requirements more and more put to the test in court this fall. But how far can challenges go? Unless governments mandating vaccines do not defend their rules, or the Supreme Court changes the law, the answer is likely, “Not far.”

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It was written by: Douglas Laycock, University of Virginia.

Read more:

Who’s covered by a vaccine mandate? Here’s a quick guide to America’s patchwork of COVID-19 shot requirements

Forceful vaccine messages backfire with holdouts – how can it be done better?

I have represented four clients in the Supreme Court who were seeking religious exemptions, but not from vaccination laws. I have filed many friend-of-the-court briefs in support of litigants seeking religious exemptions in the Supreme Court, but again, not from vaccination laws. I have filed only one brief in the Supreme Court opposing a request for religious exemptions. That was in Zubik v. Burwell, where claimants tried to get their secular insurers exempted from providing free contraception to their employees. I have repeatedly testified in Congress and state legislatures in support of religious exemptions. But I have never filed a brief or testified to a legislature about vaccination exemptions.

He's not even arguing against the vaccine, but arguing that people that got COVID once should not take the vaccine. Goalposts have been removed from the field.

Dude, you are killing me. It's clear that you want to show that the data says one thing. You introduced a study, and then when someone introduces a counterpoint to that study, from the same people who did the study, it gets dismissed as a PR stunt.

I think I would just respect it more if you just came out and said "I'm actively searching for reasons and data to not get the vaccine."

Democrats Reject Plan to Mandate Coronavirus Vaccines for Immigrants

John Binder

15 Sep 2021


House Democrats rejected a plan this week that would have required immigrants to the United States to take one of three available Chinese coronavirus vaccines despite mandates on American citizens from President Joe Biden’s administration.

Last week, Biden ordered that the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) develop a rule requiring all private companies with 100 or more employees to mandate the vaccine or be subjected to weekly coronavirus tests.

Biden also ordered the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to require vaccines for all health care workers who work at facilities receiving federal Medicare or Medicaid funding.

As Breitbart News reported, Biden has seemingly not imposed any such vaccine requirements on border crossers, illegal aliens, legal immigrants, or Afghan refugees who are arriving in the U.S.

During a hearing for the Democrats’ $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) proposed an amendment that would require the vaccine for foreign nationals in the U.S. who are seeking to adjust their immigration status to remain in the U.S.

Every Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee opposed the vaccine mandate for immigrants while every Republican supported the measure.

Those Democrats include:

Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Madeleine Dean (D-PA), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Hank Johnson (D-GA), Theodore Deutch (D-FL), Karen Bass (D-CA), Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), David Cicilline (D-RI), Eric Swalwell (D-CA), Ted Lieu (D-CA), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), Val Demings (D-FL), Luis Correa (D-CA), Mary Scanlon (D-PA), Sylvia Garcia (D-TX), Joe Neguse (D-CO), Lucy McBath (D-GA), Greg Stanton (D-AZ), Veronica Escobar (D-TX), Mondaire Jones (D-NY), Deborah Ross (D-NC), Cori Bush (D-MO)

“The American people are more than aware that President Biden is mandating vaccines for Americans while exempting those illegally flooding our borders and being released into our communities without notice,” Issa said. “And they want the hypocrisy to end.”

The lack of a vaccine requirement specifically for Afghans arriving as part of Biden’s massive resettlement operation comes as outbreaks of the coronavirus and measles have occurred at various U.S. military bases where refugees are temporarily staying.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has yet to respond to an inquiry by Breitbart News asking for clarification on the agency’s vaccine policy for arriving Afghans.

Also this week, Democrats similarly rejected amendments that would have stripped their massive amnesty for illegal aliens plan out of the budget reconciliation. Democrats even went as far as to open the amnesty to illegal aliens who are registered sex offenders, convicted drunk drivers, and gang members.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/...for-immigrants/

NO,, I'm guessing you don't have the the ability to quote the study that you are talking about.

Context behind this... FDA and CDC are sniping at each other over the WH's moves that the CDC seems to be in lock-step with, while the FDA (per the usual) prefers to keep its own agenda and schedule. FDA is responsible for reviewing/approving medical drugs/devices, so you can see that while the two groups have very distinct responsibilities, sometimes the lines (in this case) are blurred.

I believe he interpreted what he read incorrectly and in a way to twist it to fit his narrative ... which it did not.

So when the study said what you wanted it to say, study good.

When it said something you didn't want it to say, study bad.

Do you even hear yourself?

You do realize those Chinese vaccines are not approved in the U.S. , right? That's something Dullbart didn't tell you. They also didn't tell you that all immigrants being vaccinated was approved. Maybe you should find a better news source.

US requiring COVID-19 vaccines for new immigrants

The Biden administration will begin requiring immigrants to be fully vaccinated against the coronavirus before they can become permanent residents.

Starting Oct. 1, proof of vaccination will be required as part of the general medical examination form that requires would-be residents “to show they are free from any conditions that would render them inadmissible under the health-related grounds.”

The U.S. already requires those seeking residency to have a number of other vaccinations, including those for measles, mumps, rubella and chicken pox.

The requirement allows for exemption for medical and religious reasons. Children are also exempted from the order.

The Wednesday announcement from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services follows an announcement from President Biden that private businesses with more than 100 employees must mandate the coronavirus vaccine or weekly testing for their workforce.

The policy was followed with a suit from Arizona seeking to argue that the mandate for businesses was illegal since it was not also applied to those apprehended at the border.

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/572383-us-requiring-covid-vaccines-for-new-immigrants

That article is a little misleading. The last line references a lawsuit that focuses on application to people APREHENDED at the border. Those apprehended at the border are not immigrants going through the normal process, they're illegal aliens who may or may not (I honestly don't know) go through a similar medical screening like immigrants.

Interesting, because when I read that, I read it as "Chinese Coronavirus, Vaccines." Not as "Chinese, Coronavirus Vaccines."
Wonder if that was the writter's intent, so be ambiguous.

I know, that's why I wanted him to post his proof.. I knew he couldn't.. But thank you

Here you go.
https://www.news-medical.net/amp/news/20...inic-study.aspx

No point vaccinating those who’ve had COVID-19: Cleveland Clinic study suggests

Well, damon hasn't seen that on cnn or msnbc yet, so he won't know how to reply as he hasn't been told.

In other news, Moderna has said they've seen a decline in the effectiveness of their vaccine after 8 months, and they are recommending a booster shot.........of their vaccine.

Who didn't see that coming?

Perhaps instead of just looking at something that tells you what you want to hear, you can look further and find other facts that make what you think is right, but not necessarily 100% correct

https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/loca...ovid-infection/

As always context is everything.....

Yo dogg, that Cleveland Clinic Study was for 3 to 6 months after being effected with covid. They have not studied anything beyond 6 months yet.

... and they said that study didn't fully take Delta into account, which by all measures has changed the 'math' around COVID in many ways.

It sounds like arch jumped on the superbowldogg bandwagon a little early in order to attack the media. When he didn't even know himself what the study actually said. Typical. Now he's sitting there with egg on his face that only he won't be able to see.

As well as to attack me....

It's a common mistake that happens across the spectrum on the board.

::shrug::

You live to take digs at me, don't you?

I'd say you both do your fair share tbh.