So if a private business owner says one has to be vaxxed to work there

[Rigby5]

No, that’s not much of a difference because here you are wagging your finger at businesses for doing something you disagree with, by mandating vaccination for their employees.

You have a double standard. We must respect your decision to not vaccinate but you have no need to respect others decision to exclude you for making that decision.

That is wrong because employers are already legally prevented from mandating vaccines, due to successful lawsuits by Christian Scientists.
And these mRNA vaccines are so risky that I doubt the FDA will ever approve them.

 

[freyasman]

No, that’s not much of a difference because here you are wagging your finger at businesses for doing something you disagree with, by mandating vaccination for their employees.

You have a double standard. We must respect your decision to not vaccinate but you have no need to respect others decision to exclude you for making that decision.

Disagree.

Do what you gotta do, just understand that so will I.

You hurt me and I will hurt you back.






Or let it go and leave people alone to make their own decisions.

 

[Coyote]

What is new and illegal is that these vaccines being required are not FDA approved or even significantly tested.
Employers have NEVER been able to mandate vaccines, as that would violate religious freedom.

All vaccines have a religious excemption - and they still do in this case, but it is a very narrow exception.

One thing I'm wondering - are companies mandating vaccine only, or something more like what my workplace is doing.

We are required to self report being vaccinated, with the dates and locations for verification. If we don't comply by a certain date, then we will be in a pool of employees required to be masked (though that is largely unenforceable and would be an honor system) and also required to submit to Covid testing at regular intervals or randomly selected intervals. IMO, this is reasonable given it's still under emergency authorization. However once it's approved, that is different.

I'm concerned about DeSantis' EO's attempting to forbid schools from have mask mandates and cruiselines from requiring vaccinations. In the case of cruiselines - you will have a population of largely vulnerable people (they tend to be older) in close quarters - off shore. If there is a break out - are we going to have a repeat of a year and a half ago, with people and crews stuck long term out on the water unable to come port? That was a nightmare scenario. Cruises are entirely by choice. I think it's fair to require vaccinations and proof of vaccination in order to embark. With schools - each district is facing a differing level of covid cases. Masks are an easy temporary way to REDUCE spread. Forbidding that requirement to the districts that are facing a high covid load, is irresponsible, counter to public health recommendations and playing with peoples lives for political reasons.

 

[Coyote]

Disagree.

Do what you gotta do, just understand that so will I.

You hurt me and I will hurt you back.






Or let it go and leave people alone to make their own decisions.

If you leave people alone to make their own decisions than one of those decisions might well be to exclude unvaccinated people from participation in an event.

 

[Rigby5]

If you respected their decision, you wouldn’t be retaliating against them.

Their decision is not based on science, but fear and propaganda.
The entire scientific community says these are badly done pseudo vaccines that are way to risky to approve.

They do not contain a dead virus so do not sensitize the immune system to any particular virus.
All they contain is the spike protein, which means they are sensitizing our immune system against our own exosomes that have this same spike protein.

 

[toobfreak]

The government just gave all employers unfettered ability to force their employees to be vaccinated.

Which is illegal and discriminatory. There are many legitimate reasons to not want the vaccine, from religious to moral to medical, and from having good reason to fear a bad reaction to it to having a debilitating dread / handicap.

At best, employers must allow employees to give reasonable reasons and objections and make every accommodation to help them, to at worst, being blatantly illegal and discriminatory, opening the door to employers making all kinds of salacious rules and conditions demanding of their workforce in the future.

Worse, being vaccinated does absolutely no good for anything except possibly pose a lower risk to other unvaccinated people! Some studies have indicated that vaccinated people might even be a HIGHER risk of transmitting the virus.

 

[jc456]

You would still fail. What you are doing is cherry picking small studies when there are other studies out there that contradict that information. Because you are not an honest person. You are a propagandist on the wrong side of science, History, morality, and ethics.

So now studies don’t matter? See, you aren’t honest

 

[toobfreak]

If you leave people alone to make their own decisions than one of those decisions might well be to exclude unvaccinated people from participation in an event.

And what is wrong with that? We also exclude street people from construction zones because it is dangerous for them to be there. If you don't get vaxxed, you should expect to have to make some allowances, but the bottom line is that a person can have a legitimate religious, ethical or medical reason to not get the vax, right up to a person with blood clots and respiratory disease whom would be a damned fool to get a vaccine known to CAUSE blood clots and greatly inflame respiratory issues!

No flat out blanket exclusion can be justified; justice is an exercise in exceptions.

 

[Rigby5]

All vaccines have a religious excemption - and they still do in this case, but it is a very narrow exception.

One thing I'm wondering - are companies mandating vaccine only, or something more like what my workplace is doing.

We are required to self report being vaccinated, with the dates and locations for verification. If we don't comply by a certain date, then we will be in a pool of employees required to be masked (though that is largely unenforceable and would be an honor system) and also required to submit to Covid testing at regular intervals or randomly selected intervals. IMO, this is reasonable given it's still under emergency authorization. However once it's approved, that is different.

I'm concerned about DeSantis' EO's attempting to forbid schools from have mask mandates and cruiselines from requiring vaccinations. In the case of cruiselines - you will have a population of largely vulnerable people (they tend to be older) in close quarters - off shore. If there is a break out - are we going to have a repeat of a year and a half ago, with people and crews stuck long term out on the water unable to come port? That was a nightmare scenario. Cruises are entirely by choice. I think it's fair to require vaccinations and proof of vaccination in order to embark. With schools - each district is facing a differing level of covid cases. Masks are an easy temporary way to REDUCE spread. Forbidding that requirement to the districts that are facing a high covid load, is irresponsible, counter to public health recommendations and playing with peoples lives for political reasons.

But your fundamental mistake is accepting the false propaganda that reducing spread is a good thing.
It isn't.
Masks and social distancing are only a good thing for the tiny group that is most vulnerable.
The rest of the people should have all been spreading it, in order to end it.
We could have ended it in 2 weeks last March.
When you "flatten the curve", you are not helping at all, but making it last longer, which kills the most number of people.

The false hysteria came from Fauci saying that herd immunity, the way all epidemics normally end, would require 2.4 million deaths.
That is from a 2% lethality of 70% of the 330 million population.
But this is totally wrong for a dozen reasons.
The most obvious is that the death rate for those over 70 is 400 times greater than those under 40.
So for example, if you were to deliberately infect volunteers under 40, you reduce the death toll by a factor of 400, and result with only 6,000 deaths last March. Thus saving over 550,000 lives.
There are also many other problems with Fauci's 2.4 million dead estimate, such as that is ignored inherent immunity, the localization of cases last March, etc. But I don't even need that.

 

[Rigby5]

If you leave people alone to make their own decisions than one of those decisions might well be to exclude unvaccinated people from participation in an event.

There would be no logic to that.
Vaccinated can also spread, and unvaccinated do not present any increased risk to vaccinated.

 

[Coyote]

But your fundamental mistake is accepting the false propaganda that reducing spread is a good thing.
It isn't.
Masks and social distancing are only a good thing for the tiny group that is most vulnerable.
The rest of the people should have all been spreading it, in order to end it.
We could have ended it in 2 weeks last March.
When you "flatten the curve", you are not helping at all, but making it last longer, which kills the most number of people.

The false hysteria came from Fauci saying that herd immunity, the way all epidemics normally end, would require 2.4 million deaths.
That is from a 2% lethality of 70% of the 330 million population.
But this is totally wrong for a dozen reasons.
The most obvious is that the death rate for those over 70 is 400 times greater than those under 40.
So for example, if you were to deliberately infect volunteers under 40, you reduce the death toll by a factor of 400, and result with only 6,000 deaths last March. Thus saving over 550,000 lives.
There are also many other problems with Fauci's 2.4 million dead estimate, such as that is ignored inherent immunity, the localization of cases last March, etc. But I don't even need that.

The first problem here is I don't except your premise that it's false.

The second problem here is your idea of "ending it" with a version of herd immunity that doesn't involve vaccination (at least that is how I'm reading it). You're proposing allowing a disease to "run it's course" and letting millions of people die as a result. Aside from the ethical aspects of this, our healthcare system would be completely overrun and broken (look at other countries like India).

 

[Rigby5]

And what is wrong with that? We also exclude street people from construction zones because it is dangerous for them to be there. If you don't get vaxxed, you should expect to have to make some allowances, but the bottom line is that a person can have a legitimate religious, ethical or medical reason to not get the vax, right up to a person with blood clots and respiratory disease whom would be a damned fool to get a vaccine known to CAUSE blood clots and greatly inflame respiratory issues!

No flat out blanket exclusion can be justified; justice is an exercise in exceptions.

And the fact these experimental vaccines are not FDA approved, should be a valid exception.

 

[Flopper]

Wrong.
It is still illegal to force employees to take a vaccine that is not FDA approved.
The current government stance just makes it harder to sue, but you can and will likely win eventually.

It is probably illegal to physically force anyone to take the vaccine. However, employers who make vaccination, mask wearing, using a hand sanitizer, or any other government healthcare recommendation a job requirement are certainly within their rights to do so. In regard to FDA approval, the FDA has given emergency authorization and we are still in a national emergency. Whether the FDA has given full approval of the vaccines or just given emergency authorization is irrelevant as it is the employers decision as to how he will make make the workplace safe for employees and customers safe. As long as his decisions are within the law it will standup in court. And btw, the issue of employer mandated vaccination has been upheld in the courts.

 

[Pellinore]

Utter and complete bullshit.

Over 99% of people who even catch it recover.
If you want to promote safety, you tell the ones who are sick or are most at risk, to stay home..... you don't force experimental medical procedures on healthy people who just want to provide for themselves and their families.


This is all a scam.

Why Are Globalists And Governments So Desperate For 100% Vaccination Rates? - Alt-Market.us

By Brandon Smith I don’t think I am the only person that has noticed it – There has been a...

alt-market.us

It's 98.2% of those who were diagnosed, and they survive but not all of them "recover."

 

[Coyote]

There would be no logic to that.
Vaccinated can also spread, and unvaccinated do not present any increased risk to vaccinated.

Unvaccinated provide a reservoir for new and possibly more lethal variants to form. At some point, one of those variants might overcome the vaccine. So yes, they do present a risk. They also present a risk to the handful of people who can not be vaccinated or are unable to mount a good immune response to vaccination.

 

[Coyote]

It's 98.2% of those who were diagnosed, and they survive but not all of them "recover."

There are significant long term affects in many cases even when the disease was initially thought to be mild.

 

[Rigby5]

The first problem here is I don't except your premise that it's false.

The second problem here is your idea of "ending it" with a version of herd immunity that doesn't involve vaccination (at least that is how I'm reading it). You're proposing allowing a disease to "run it's course" and letting millions of people die as a result. Aside from the ethical aspects of this, our healthcare system would be completely overrun and broken (look at other countries like India).

Its not my premise , but epidemiology 101, that the more time you give an epidemic, the harder it is to end and the more dead you get.
And "flattening the curve" in no way helps, but instead just gives an epidemic more time to spread.
It won't spread as fast, but with more time, the circles of contact widen, so it spreads much further geographically.

And no, you do NOT end up with millions dead because you deliberately accelerate the spread among the young/healthy who are not likely to die.
They are 400 times less likely to die than the elderly and compromised who are dying now.
So if you deliberately infect those who are not going to die, you reduce the death toll by a factor of 400.
So then Fauci's 2.4 million dead becomes only 6000, and we could have ended it last March.

Go look up variolation. It is what we used to do, going back to ancient Egypt.
It is how we discovered vaccination, from first doing variolation.
Vaccination normally is even better, but not when you wait a year and then use very risky experimental pseudo vaccines that are very risky.
They do not get the immune system to target a particular virus.
They only have the spike protein and nothing else.
That could cause the immune system to begin targeting exosomes that also share that spike protein.

 

[colfax_m]

Their decision is not based on science, but fear and propaganda.
The entire scientific community says these are badly done pseudo vaccines that are way to risky to approve.

They do not contain a dead virus so do not sensitize the immune system to any particular virus.
All they contain is the spike protein, which means they are sensitizing our immune system against our own exosomes that have this same spike protein.

This post is gibberish.

They sensitize our immune system to spike protein, which is present on the COVID virus.

 

[Rigby5]

Unvaccinated provide a reservoir for new and possibly more lethal variants to form. At some point, one of those variants might overcome the vaccine. So yes, they do present a risk. They also present a risk to the handful of people who can not be vaccinated or are unable to mount a good immune response to vaccination.

Wrong.
What causes variants is "flattening the curve".
Its a factor of time only.

The fastest, best, and safest way to end the epidemic most quickly is to accelerate its spread.
These vaccines are horribly badly done.
They only contain the spike protein, not whole dead virus.
So it is VERY likely these vaccines will eventually cause an allergic reaction to our one exosome spike proteins.

 

[Flopper]

Utter and complete bullshit.

Over 99% of people who even catch it recover.
If you want to promote safety, you tell the ones who are sick or are most at risk, to stay home..... you don't force experimental medical procedures on healthy people who just want to provide for themselves and their families.


This is all a scam.

Why Are Globalists And Governments So Desperate For 100% Vaccination Rates? - Alt-Market.us

By Brandon Smith I don’t think I am the only person that has noticed it – There has been a...

alt-market.us

The FDA gave approval for emergency use, not experimental and the US is still in a national healthcare emergency.