Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

George Mason professor wins Covid antibody lawsuit as vaccine exemption

nclalegal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 146 posts

Re: George Mason professor wins Covid antibody lawsuit as vaccine exemption

#41

Post by inter_netuser »

thurn wrote: post #29
criticaltinker wrote: post #10

I vouched for OP - it is a factual description of a relevant current event that is pertinent to civil liberties. IMO the presented argument is valid and well supported scientifically and legally. It will be very interesting to see if this sets any precedent for other institutions. > GMU and other universities must stop ignoring science and cease forcing mandatory vaccines on even those with naturally acquired immunit…

I'm not precisely sure this where the article's text contains a well-supported legal argument about why the mandate is unconstitutional -- in fact I don't believe there's any discussion at all of the relevant statutes & case law? A link to the decision itself would probably provide more of that information.

seems the university simply granted a medical exemption, and was not ordered by the court to do so?

GMU maintained their policy that everyone must be vaccinated regardless of their antibody status.

Seems really strange.

Re: George Mason professor wins Covid antibody lawsuit as vaccine exemption

#42

Post by josephcsible »

framecowbird wrote: post #37
ampgt wrote: post #12

How did we get to a point where we think it’s OK to tell someone what they should do with their body? For the record: I am vaccinated and I always encourage others to do so. But what is the difference between someone choosing to not vaccinate “because of their religion” and just choosing not to vaccinate? Why is one of those OK and the other isn’t?

I'm not disagreeing with you regarding vaccination. However, there is a long history of the state telling people what they should do with their body. The two most obvious examples are drug usage and abortion. Why do we accept that but are suddenly outraged by vaccination? Vaccination mandates aren't new either: many countries will not even let you enter unless you are vaccinated against yellow fever. I think there ar…

> there is a long history of the state telling people what they should do with their body. The two most obvious examples are drug usage and abortion.

You're only applying this argument in one direction, but it works in both directions. Most people who want the vaccine to be mandatory disagree with the state restricting drug usage and abortion. If you disagree with some policy and want to get it overturned, it seems wrong to try to use it as precedent to set new policies in the meantime.

Re: George Mason professor wins Covid antibody lawsuit as vaccine exemption

#43

Post by risyachka »

Ancapistani wrote: post #27
jbluepolarbear wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did we get to the point where so many people would rather risk death and the death of many others than receive a free vaccine? They’re putting themself and all peoples that interact with them at serious risk.

Can you provide a citation for this? The last stat I saw was from Israel, and it was that vaccinated people who had never had COVID were ~6-7x more likely to be infected than unvaccinated people who had previously been confirmed to have had it in the past.

The last I saw it prevented 99% of hospitalization.

Re: George Mason professor wins Covid antibody lawsuit as vaccine exemption

#44

Post by inter_netuser »

fatbird wrote: post #28
jbluepolarbear wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did we get to the point where so many people would rather risk death and the death of many others than receive a free vaccine? They’re putting themself and all peoples that interact with them at serious risk.

To the point where they not only refuse the vaccines, but take Ivermectin, an anti-parasatic proven for farm livestock because the buzz in the conservative monkeysphere says it's a cure-all.

there is some evidence that ivermectin has antiviral activity in-vitro, tested on primate cells. Many drugs have effects that are outside of on-label indications, as those are really just for marketing purposes.

Physicians are absolutely free to prescribe things off-label, do so routinely, and in fact in many situations the majority of prescriptions happen to be off-label.

The only concern here is 1) that concentration needed to achieve that effect may potentially be toxic to humans. 2) in-vitro studies mighte be insufficient/weak evidence and may fail in-vivo (happens all the time)

Re: George Mason professor wins Covid antibody lawsuit as vaccine exemption

#45

Post by andi999 »

Grimm1 wrote: post #21
ampgt wrote: post #12

How did we get to a point where we think it’s OK to tell someone what they should do with their body? For the record: I am vaccinated and I always encourage others to do so. But what is the difference between someone choosing to not vaccinate “because of their religion” and just choosing not to vaccinate? Why is one of those OK and the other isn’t?

If this was a sterilizing vaccine, such that you couldn't spread the virus or be infected after taking it I'd say neither are okay, religious or otherwise, because your personal choice has the potential to affect a wide range of people by getting them sick, making your personal choice not so personal. Your rights end where mine begin and all of that. You shouldn't be able to spread a virus to others without consequen…

Even non sterilizing could be argued, it effects other people if you cannot find an ICU after your car accident because they are full with unvaccinated (and some vaccinated) covid patients.

Re: George Mason professor wins Covid antibody lawsuit as vaccine exemption

#46

Post by josephcsible »

fatbird wrote: post #33
josephcsible wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can take your shirt and shoes back off once you leave a business. A better comparison would be businesses that banned certain hairstyles or tattoos.

In fact, you are, in the US, allowed to refuse service to someone based on their tattoos or hairstyle [0]. The only prohibition in general on refusing service is to protected classes such as race or sex. So now we can refuse service to someone with a tattoo we dislike, but not because they're unvaccinated? We don't deserve to survive as a species if we're that fucking dumb. [0] https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/…

In a lot of states, hairstyle is considered a protected class these days.

Re: George Mason professor wins Covid antibody lawsuit as vaccine exemption

#47

Post by robocat »

Ancapistani wrote: post #27
jbluepolarbear wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did we get to the point where so many people would rather risk death and the death of many others than receive a free vaccine? They’re putting themself and all peoples that interact with them at serious risk.

Can you provide a citation for this? The last stat I saw was from Israel, and it was that vaccinated people who had never had COVID were ~6-7x more likely to be infected than unvaccinated people who had previously been confirmed to have had it in the past.

Vaccination provides 2x better protection than naturally acquired “immunity” - see good data using search: https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=covid+protection+vaccine+v...

“In today’s MMWR, a study of COVID-19 infections in Kentucky among people who were previously infected with SAR-CoV-2 shows that unvaccinated individuals are more than twice as likely to be reinfected with COVID-19 than those who were fully vaccinated after initially contracting the virus. These data further indicate that COVID-19 vaccines offer better protection than natural immunity alone and that vaccines, even after prior infection, help prevent reinfections.” 6 August 2021 - https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-pr...

Before repeating false stats, either look up your references, or provide them. There is a HUGE amount of ongoing misinformation about Covid figures which you cannot help but be aware of. For some reason the recent information from Israel seems to be especially misinterpreted (maliciously or not) - and anything recent referencing Israel is a red flag that it is likely disinformation. https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/israeli-data-how-can-...

It is especially egregious to ask for a citation when you don’t provide one yourself.

Re: George Mason professor wins Covid antibody lawsuit as vaccine exemption

#48

Post by s1artibartfast »

Grimm1 wrote: post #21
ampgt wrote: post #12

How did we get to a point where we think it’s OK to tell someone what they should do with their body? For the record: I am vaccinated and I always encourage others to do so. But what is the difference between someone choosing to not vaccinate “because of their religion” and just choosing not to vaccinate? Why is one of those OK and the other isn’t?

If this was a sterilizing vaccine, such that you couldn't spread the virus or be infected after taking it I'd say neither are okay, religious or otherwise, because your personal choice has the potential to affect a wide range of people by getting them sick, making your personal choice not so personal. Your rights end where mine begin and all of that. You shouldn't be able to spread a virus to others without consequen…

What if there was a medical treatment prbabisticly reduced aggression, violence, or other antisocial behavior?

Re: George Mason professor wins Covid antibody lawsuit as vaccine exemption

#49

Post by fatbird »

inter_netuser wrote: post #44
fatbird wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To the point where they not only refuse the vaccines, but take Ivermectin, an anti-parasatic proven for farm livestock because the buzz in the conservative monkeysphere says it's a cure-all.

there is some evidence that ivermectin has antiviral activity in-vitro, tested on primate cells. Many drugs have effects that are outside of on-label indications, as those are really just for marketing purposes. Physicians are absolutely free to prescribe things off-label, do so routinely, and in fact in many situations the majority of prescriptions happen to be off-label. The only concern here is 1) that concentrati…

Which is to say that the more immediate concern is that it has never been tested or approved for human consumption and there are no guidelines around dosage or expected efficacy and if you're taking it because you heard about it as you seem to have, you're wildly guessing about a treatment in preference to availing yourself of a proven treatment that's been administered almost a billion times in the last 18 months under great scrutiny.

If you take Ivermectin in preference to getting vaccinated, you deserve to die. The preferred moral outcome here is for you to die by your own hand rather than let your willful ignorance increase the risk to your community.

Re: George Mason professor wins Covid antibody lawsuit as vaccine exemption

#50

Post by josephcsible »

kbenson wrote: post #39
bcrosby95 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Similarly, businesses and institutions have a First Amendment right (the right of association) to choose who they do business with. Private institutions. George Mason University is a public school and the situation for this professor is actually the exact opposite of what you seem to be claiming here.

And yet they can require many things of people that are infringements of rights of expression and autonomy, such as dress codes. If en employee there notified them that they had been infected with a highly infectious disease (think smallpox) and still wanted to go to work, would they have a right to deny that person? If so, what specifically constrains them in a situation like this that wouldn't in a situation like t…

Would you deny a person entrance to your building because they had Ebola or rabies?

Would you deny a person entrance to your building because they weren't vaccinated against Ebola or rabies?

Why the different answers?

Post reply on HN