341–350 of 443 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is fear of dying irrational? I mean, it's going to happen to us all anyway, so does it matter if it's via airborne virus or whatever it is that conservatives fear is going to kill them?
Fear of dying of covid because someone is taking their child to play in a park certainly is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Because athletes and performers are irreplaceable and bring in tourist revenue which the city wants. Firefighters are more easily replaceable and have no effect on tourism. I believe this is the most cynical thing I've read yet today. > I don't see what doesn't make sense here If the Athletes and Performers are so irreplaceable, then wouldn't you demand they be the most protected by the vaccine, and thus require th…
Are there athletes or performers older than 55 so covid vaccination would have positive effect?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It wasn't Kyrie, it was the Yankees. The opening came just before the start of the MLB season but well into the NBA season.
Rumor was Aaron Judge, the Yankee's biggest star, was unvaccinated. He personally sidestepped question about vaccine status and the team had publicly said a few (two?) players on a Yankees hadn't had their shots. Before opening day there were questions about if Judge would be able to play in New York. The whole thing ended up being a mute point, because everyone on the starting roster[1] eventually got their shots so…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting, I never bothered to investigate the basis of that claim. According to https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02328-0 , a recent study does show that the vaccine was effective at preventing the spread, which is unsurprising to me. What is surprising is that the article claims this was the first study of the effectiveness against spreading an infection.
> those who received at least one vaccine shot were 24% less likely to infect close contacts At best you could claim “reducing the spread” (but marginally) and in now way “preventing”.
>protection waned to around 10% after only 4–6 months
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00775-3
It would only be a measure of postponing some of the rising transmission rates if people don't get boosted every few months. Also it would have to be compared against the effects of natural immunity.
Something I've been wondering in recent cases where courts are overturning recent government action, whether unconstitutional bills passed into law, or unconstitutional executive actions that overstep authority, is where's the penalty for committing those actions in the first place? The state of New York famously responded to the outcome of NYSRPA v. Bruen, which overturned the defacto ban on concealed carry, by decl…
>where's the penalty for committing those actions in the first place You've hit the core problem of society/government that countless generations have tried to obfuscate via an academic body that implies that social interactions can be studied/understood like natural sciences. At the core, all social structure is built on the threat of violence - Commit non-violent white collar crime? Show up to court, because if you…
This is what group violence is historically used for. When responsibility was so diffused among so many people that you couldn't fix things by picking one of the most responsible and making an example out of them the king or whoever would have everyone in the group subjected to violence or some other punishment under credible threat of violence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not the person to ask, but plenty of people claim to reject capitalism and participate in society like Rage Against the Machine.
Simple example - bhuddist monks, they don't take part in capitalism, they do their own thing. Would you be allowed to build a monastery on top of a random mountain in America today? Clearly not. Force will be used to remove you. So you portrailyal of 'anything short of terrorism is fair game' is totally inaccurate - the only way you are allowed to reject capitalism by selling tickets to a concert where you just talk…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Forgive me, but what is it a slippery slope of? I immediately thought this logic was already applied to things like child toy regulation or lead paint warning regulation or food recall regulation or workplace safety regulation… it’s really common for the government to enforce people to do things (or ban people from doing other things) in certain contexts because of the danger otherwise.
> Covid was/is killing people, vaccines prevent that, so vaccines must be required. Very simple. There's a pretty significant difference between "you may not sell dangerous products" and "you must use X medicine". Next up, government mandated pedometers with minimum step counts, broccoli consumption, teeth brushing (prevents heart disease that kills people!), flossing, and minimum hours of sleep per night. Once we've…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Covid was/is killing people, vaccines prevent that, so vaccines must be required. Very simple. There's a pretty significant difference between "you may not sell dangerous products" and "you must use X medicine". Next up, government mandated pedometers with minimum step counts, broccoli consumption, teeth brushing (prevents heart disease that kills people!), flossing, and minimum hours of sleep per night. Once we've…
I actually think the government can and should regulate food consumption. We already did it with cigarettes and trans fats. Omega-6 fatty acids should be next. A more fair but less politically viable alternative is to tax the healthcare of people with >%30 body fat. But these should probably have 10 year limits with the ultimate goal of changing people's habits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doubt it. The court also said the following (court towards the end indicates that the mandate didn’t make sense even when the order was issued): > “”Being vaccinated does not prevent an individual from contracting or transmitting Covid-19. As of the day of this Decision, CDC guidelines regarding quarantine and isolation are the same for vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. The Petitioners should not have been ter…
Yikes. This reads like a gish-gallop of anti-vax talking points. I don’t even necessarily disagree with the decision to reinstate the employees, but this legal reasoning is embarrassing. Edit: I’m happy to learn that the New York Supreme Court is not the highest court in New York, this entire thread is misleading (I think people are assuming New York’s highest court slapped down vaccine mandates). I don’t know why Ne…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah but the ruling is bogus. The health commissioner's order didn't say fire the employees [1]. It said that you can't have unvaccinated people on the premise which is clearly within their powers to "control of communicable and chronic diseases ... " [2]. The commissioner never said you needed to fire anybody. It we start taking this to the extreme, I think we can agree if somebody has Ebola its ok for the commissio…
The Health Commissioner can _quarantine_ someone, for a specified period of time, yes. But that’s not what happened. Instead the Commissioner apparently decided that these people, who were not sick, couldn’t be allowed to work and earn their living. But they could still go to grocery stores and baseball games, because those places aren’t important. Besides, you cannot go by the overall mission of some government agen…
Demonstrably false. The commissioner's order (which I linked above) never required them to be fired. The order solely required they be kept off the premise which is not the same as fired. Sure somebody could fire them and then claim the health order told them to but that wouldn't make it truthful; the health code is very clear on violations being a fines / misdemeanors.
> But they could still go to grocery stores and baseball games, because those places aren’t important.
Sure. Perhaps the agency has the power to stop people from doing that. It's not explicitly listed though.
> An agency, no matter how well–meaning they are, is not allowed to take any action not on their list.
The legislature has delegated a vague do everything to the agency. So, everything is on their list ...
"Except as otherwise provided by law, the department shall have jurisdiction to regulate all matters affecting health in the city of New York and to perform all those functions and operations performed by the city that relate to the health of the people of the city, including but not limited to the mental health, intellectual and developmental disability, alcoholism and substance abuse-related needs of the people of the city. The jurisdiction of the department shall include but not be limited to the following:"
However, the Health Department does have explicit control over "(5) ... operation of facilities by other agencies of the city;". Which is exactly what they were doing. They were telling other agencies that they can't operate their facilities with unvaccinated individuals. They also tailored the order to be as narrow as it needed to be. The unvaccinated individuals are still allowed to work, just not on premise which is how a disease would get transmitted at those facilities.
[1]: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/covid/covid-19...