;
Connect with us

News

Gov. Cuomo Tries to Blame Trump for New York’s Cover-Up of COVID Deaths

After the news broke that his cover-up of nursing home deaths was worse than thought NY Gov. Cuomo blamed Trump for the cover-up

Published

on

The New York Times reported that the effort of NY Governor Andrew Cuomo to cover up nursing home deaths was worse than previously thought. Cuomo has responded to those charges by blaming the cover-up on President Trump. Cuomo blames Trump

On the 28th of April, the Times reported:

The effort by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s office to obscure the pandemic death toll in New York nursing homes was far greater than previously known, with aides repeatedly overruling state health officials over a span of at least five months, according to interviews and newly unearthed documents.

Mr. Cuomo’s most senior aides engaged in a sustained effort to prevent the state’s own health officials, including the commissioner, Howard Zucker, from releasing the true death toll to the public or sharing it with state lawmakers, these interviews and documents showed.

A scientific paper, which incorporated the data, was never published. An audit of the numbers by a top Cuomo aide was finished months before it became publicly known. Two letters, drafted by the Health Department and meant for state legislators, were never sent.

Everything was kept hidden because of Cuomo’s aides.

take our poll - story continues below

Is Biden's Vaccine Mandate Unconstitutional?

  • Is Biden's Vaccine Mandate Unconstitutional?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

The day after the NY Times report, Cuomo was asked about it by reporters. The Luv Gov said the reason the numbers were held up because he wanted them to be accurate as the state was dealing with a political investigation

Cuomo said Trump had the Department of Justice launch a “political investigation” into the nursing home policies enacted by him and three other Democratic governors.

“And that then, quote-unquote, freezes the situation, because the lawyers say we have to be very, very careful,” he claimed.

“This was all politics and all a political football that then morphed into an investigation, which made all the lawyers very careful about what the information they put out was.”

.As usual, Cuomo refuses to take credit for his own actions.

On March 25, 2020, Cuomo issued an order directing nursing homes to take in patients that already had the highly contagious coronavirus. “No resident shall be ­denied readmission or admission to NH solely based on a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of COVID-19,” then failed to reverse the directive for six weeks as deaths mounted.

As the death count began to accelerate, Governor Cuomo blamed the death count on old people die anyway, asymptomatic healthcare workers, the feds, President Trump forced him to give the March 25th order and/or he never gave the order,

Instead of writing a book and trying to get awards to hide his bad decisions and the subsequent cover-up regarding his handling of the pandemic, Cuomo should be a man and take credit for the disastrous order he gave and blocking the death count despite the pleading of the victims’ families.

But Andrew Cuomo is someone whose bullying ego is so large that his mind could never accept that he did anything wrong—thus, he blames others. His response to the NY Times is just the latest example of his blaming others because he refuses to accept his own mistake.

News

Major Disparity Discovered Between Moderna and Pfizer Vaccines

This could make an enormous difference when it comes to the subject of COVID boosters.

Published

on

These days, when you get your polio or tetanus vaccines, you don’t really go shopping around, right?  These two inoculations have been perfected to death, over decades and decades, and really just come with one choice:  Be vaccinated or don’t.

But, in the case of COVID-19 and the swiftly-developed vaccines against it, there are several competing options to choose from, which has created and fomented a hotly-debated choice for many Americans.

Now, new evidence seems to suggest that there is truly a difference in efficacy between the two most popular jabs.

Data collected from 18 states between March and August suggest the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine reduces the risk of being hospitalized with COVID-19 by 91% in the first four months after receiving the second dose. Beyond 120 days, however, that vaccine efficacy drops to 77%.

take our poll - story continues below

Is Biden's Vaccine Mandate Unconstitutional?

  • Is Biden's Vaccine Mandate Unconstitutional?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Meanwhile, Moderna’s vaccine was 93% effective at reducing the short-term risk of COVID-19 hospitalization and remained 92% effective after 120 days.

Overall, 54% of fully vaccinated Americans have been immunized with the Pfizer shot.

The news could create a major shift in the way country considers the possibly of vaccine booster shots, which has been a confusing and fraught subject over the course of the last several weeks.

One clinical study suggested that the Pfizer boosters could return the efficacy to the 95% range, but the addition of another shot is likely to move the needle on vaccine hesitancy as well, which is a balance that health experts are wary of teetering.

These days, when you get your polio or tetanus vaccines, you don’t really go shopping around, right?  These two inoculations have been perfected to death, over decades and decades, and really just come with one choice:  Be vaccinated or don’t. But, in the case of COVID-19 and the swiftly-developed vaccines against it, there are several competing options to choose from, which has created and fomented a hotly-debated choice for many Americans. Now, new evidence seems to suggest that there is truly a difference in efficacy between the two most popular jabs. Data collected from 18 states between March and August suggest the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine reduces the risk of being hospitalized with COVID-19 by 91% in the first four months after receiving the second dose. Beyond 120 days, however, that vaccine efficacy drops to 77%. Meanwhile, Moderna’s vaccine was 93% effective at reducing the short-term risk of COVID-19 hospitalization and remained 92% effective after 120 days. Overall, 54% of fully vaccinated Americans have been immunized with the Pfizer shot. The news could create a major shift in the way country considers the possibly of vaccine booster shots, which has been a confusing and fraught subject over the course of the last several weeks. One clinical study suggested that the Pfizer boosters could return the efficacy to the 95% range, but the addition of another shot is likely to move the needle on vaccine hesitancy as well, which is a balance that health experts are wary of teetering.

Continue Reading

News

Texas Doctor Defies Abortion Ban, Setting Up New Legal Challenge to Enforcement

This is just a game of courts and time, and this doctor is betting that with enough of the latter, the former will swing to his favor.

Published

on

While the Supreme Court is often seen as a finish line for certain legal challenges here in the United States, in some cases, it is truly only the beginning of another, larger fight.

Such seems to be the case in Texas, where a new abortion ban has already been defied by one doctor.

A Texas doctor claimed Saturday that he has deliberately violated the state’s new abortion law in order to help test whether it’s legal.

Alan Braid, an obstetrician-gynecologist in San Antonio, explained his actions in an essay published in The Washington Post.

take our poll - story continues below

Is Biden's Vaccine Mandate Unconstitutional?

  • Is Biden's Vaccine Mandate Unconstitutional?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Braid writes that he understands “there could be legal consequences” because of his action.

It seems that “legal consequences” were the whole point.

“But I wanted to make sure that Texas didn’t get away with its bid to prevent this blatantly unconstitutional law from being tested.”

He added later: “I understand that by providing an abortion beyond the new legal limit, I am taking a personal risk, but it’s something I believe in strongly.”

The news comes just days after the Attorney General, Merrick Garland, stated his unequivocal opinion that the new Texas law was unconstitutional – something that very well may have factored into the decision by Braid.

Braid’s case, should Texas choose to enforce the law against him, certainly has the makings of a situation that could again reach the Supreme Court.  Should there be any changes to the makeup of that judicial body ahead of Braid’s case, there could be a reasonable chance that the Texas law gets overturned.

This is why the GOP is so concerned about the Biden administration’s willingness to consider the possibility of packing the court.

While the Supreme Court is often seen as a finish line for certain legal challenges here in the United States, in some cases, it is truly only the beginning of another, larger fight. Such seems to be the case in Texas, where a new abortion ban has already been defied by one doctor. A Texas doctor claimed Saturday that he has deliberately violated the state’s new abortion law in order to help test whether it’s legal. Alan Braid, an obstetrician-gynecologist in San Antonio, explained his actions in an essay published in The Washington Post. Braid writes that he understands “there could be legal consequences” because of his action. It seems that “legal consequences” were the whole point. “But I wanted to make sure that Texas didn’t get away with its bid to prevent this blatantly unconstitutional law from being tested.” He added later: “I understand that by providing an abortion beyond the new legal limit, I am taking a personal risk, but it’s something I believe in strongly.” The news comes just days after the Attorney General, Merrick Garland, stated his unequivocal opinion that the new Texas law was unconstitutional – something that very well may have factored into the decision by Braid. Braid’s case, should Texas choose to enforce the law against him, certainly has the makings of a situation that could again reach the Supreme Court.  Should there be any changes to the makeup of that judicial body ahead of Braid’s case, there could be a reasonable chance that the Texas law gets overturned. This is why the GOP is so concerned about the Biden administration’s willingness to consider the possibility of packing the court.

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week