481–490 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, not an osha issue then.
That's right, but the fact is that the president's goal is to get everyone who can receive the vaccine to be vaccinated. He lacks the authority to issue a simple vaccine mandate for everyone and is just doing what he does have the authority to do. The vaccine is not just about workplace safety and people who work from home should still get the shot.
Inevitable outcome in a society that is terrified of everything. And to think that our ancestors sailed across the oceans into the unknown and faced diseases, war, famine, and worse. Now we are instituting a surveillance state in the name of a fairly bad flu virus with a 99% survival rate. We really need a new frontier. Hopefully space travel happens before human beings become completely domesticated.
Consider that perhaps the best way to honor those "fearless" risks is to not waste the world they made possible for us by unnecessarily cutting our own lives short. I certainly hope my descendants have even longer lives than I do! But perhaps that's just my selfish genes talking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would employers need additional immunity? Do schools usually need legal immunity when they require vaccines?
If you cannot sue the maker of the vaccine, enterprising lawyers will sue the deepest pockets involved in making you get vaccinated.
yep, turns out lawyers will find stuff to sue folks for, no matter what
so, companies might as well do the right thing and be protected by the federal government than do the wrong thing and have to fight those lawyers all on their own
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's go even further and mandate psychological and physical tests, to make sure there are fewer deaths. You never know what goes through someone's head or whether a previous injury will lead to an accident. I'm only half joking, this could actually help me :D
You know what kills more than COVID? Sugar which causes cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. If we're going to go after COVID for the havoc it causes, there's a long list of similar issues that could be tackled with the same type of mandate. I don't look forward to our health-police state we apparently decided was a great idea. Well we didn't decide, because that would have required congress to pass a law. This was j…
If you eat sugar, you don't endanger others' health. If you don't get vaccinated, you put others at risk. See the difference?
Inevitable outcome in a society that is terrified of everything. And to think that our ancestors sailed across the oceans into the unknown and faced diseases, war, famine, and worse. Now we are instituting a surveillance state in the name of a fairly bad flu virus with a 99% survival rate. We really need a new frontier. Hopefully space travel happens before human beings become completely domesticated.
I never understand this whole "99% survival rate" being presented as if that's low. I don't know about you, but if I'm around something that has a 1 in 100 chance of killing me, I'm going to do everything I can to not let it, because those are NOT low odds. It also conveniently ignores the known and unknown long-haul effects from Covid, which impacts a significant percentage (20%?). I, for one, like staying in relati…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah what's next? Making other behaviors that have a small but established likelihood of endangering the lives of others or their property illegal at little to no cost to the liberty of an individual? Pretty soon I won't be able to drive my car under the influence, or without proper insurance, or while not wearing a seatbelt, or I won't be able to discharge my firearms in my 0.2 acre backyard in a suburban area. 650,…
An interesting element is my choice vs choices put on me. There is another angle people talk about... The building I work in was designed and built by others. Regulations mean they can't cut corners in their impact of me. A vaccine that protects me from getting the virus or getting a serious case. It's a difference between others work impacting my safety and my own choices impacting my safety. This is an area worth p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet they can have enough of a viral load to pass it along to any non-healthy people they come in contact with. Which is why this NOT a personal health issue, it's a public health issue. As I have explained to several of my children's young friends "you are correct, COVID will probably not make you sick, but how will you feel when you find out you killed your grandmother by giving it to her".
As others have mentioned here you pass it along vaccinated or not. You can also have the vulnerable population take precautions, not the young population. To be frank what kind of sick society pushes the young population to take on risk (novel vaccine incomplete clinical trials, rare heart inflammation issues documented, spike protein membrane break off issue, etc) to protect the elderly population? This is the first…
And you're comparing a very small risk for the youth (getting a vaccine) versus a very large risk for the elderly.
They're your grandparents though, so I guess that's your decision.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah what's next? Making other behaviors that have a small but established likelihood of endangering the lives of others or their property illegal at little to no cost to the liberty of an individual? Pretty soon I won't be able to drive my car under the influence, or without proper insurance, or while not wearing a seatbelt, or I won't be able to discharge my firearms in my 0.2 acre backyard in a suburban area. 650,…
You really think those death numbers are accurate? There are a ton of incentives present (read: federal $$$) for hospitals and others to exaggerate death counts and case numbers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m vaccinated, but against this vaccine mandate. My proposed method is this: 1) If you want to get vaccinated, get vaccinated. 2) If you don’t, don’t. 3) If you go to the hospital with a COVID infection, your care is covered by insurance if you are vaccinated. If you are not, your care is not covered by insurance. This allows people to make decisions about their bodies, while also fending off the two main arguments…
> With my plan, the unvaccinated will be disincentivized to go to the hospital to get COVID care, thus freeing these beds up. Again, this respects personal choices. The fact that this sentiment already exists in America (via private insurance and out-of-network costs) is absolutely abhorrent. Citizenry should never be disincentivized from seeking out healthcare.
I am proposing a more direct penalty, which is only put into effect if:
1) you don’t get vaccinated
2) you get COVID
3) you get treatment at the hospital for COVID
The current penalty proposal (getting fired) happens at step 1. I do not agree with that.
In a socialized healthcare system, my penalty would be the same. Instead of your insurance company doling out the penalty (withholding payment), it would be your government, but the effect is the same.
I do not want to force people to do something they don’t want to do to their bodies, and I do not want others to suffer for the unvaccinated’s choices. Therefore, if you decide not to get vaccinated, you pay for your own healthcare if you go to the hospital for COVID treatment.
Personal choice comes with personal responsibility. But personal choice should still be allowed.
Inevitable outcome in a society that is terrified of everything. And to think that our ancestors sailed across the oceans into the unknown and faced diseases, war, famine, and worse. Now we are instituting a surveillance state in the name of a fairly bad flu virus with a 99% survival rate. We really need a new frontier. Hopefully space travel happens before human beings become completely domesticated.
> Inevitable outcome in a society that is terrified of everything. I agree. Lots of folks afraid to take a shot that's been well-studied and given to millions and is, in all probability, quite safe. ;) I chalk it up to the youth, who are selfish and only able to think about themselves and their Friendster ranks and how many YouTubes they have on the FaceSpace.
That's one way to describe it.
Another less charitable way to describe it: a novel gene therapy being deployed by organizations with a long history of experimenting on the people they were meant to protect.
Pfizer and J&J got the two biggest fines ever handed out by the US government, and moderna and biontech have never had a drug approved before. The US government's history of performing medical experiments on it's own (and foreign) populations speaks for itself.
It is interesting how you characterize the lack of trust in these organizations as selfishness.
Edit: Apparently I've been posting too fast despite my last post being over an ago, so I can't reply. This post has also been flagged, probably due to the gene therapy comment.
Both Modern and the FDA consider it to be a gene therapy.
"Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA."[1]
[1] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1682852/000168285220...