Mandating COVID-19 Vaccination

[jaeger19]

As I said (again) the rules need to be in place because there is a minority of people out there who are dumbasses-and all it takes is a SINGLE dumbass to infect and kill a susceptible innocent person. k.

Yeah no.. not if there is a safe and effective vaccine. If there is a safe and effective vaccine... the only person an unvaccinated individual is putting at risk.. is himself/herself.

Second.. if you contend that a single unvaccinated person should be quarantined and prevented from going to public school or working with the public.. on the basis that they constitute such a severe danger to others. Well then there should be NO exceptions for those unvaccinated for any reason. Is that what you support?

Because if you don;t support that.. and you think there should be exceptions for those that can;t have the vaccine for medical reasons... well then you are admitting that your premise that "one unvaccinated person can kill innocents" and therefore needs to be quarantined, is a false premise.

Those who cannot take the vaccine for medical reasons are furloughed until the pandemic is over-

Interesting... so my employee who is a licensed pulmonologist.. and who is currently saving lives because of her expertise... .. when a vaccine becomes available... you want her to be taken away from saving lives... and sent home.. where she loses her healthcare insurance and her livelihood.. because according to you.. the minute that a vaccine becomes available.. she suddenly becomes terribly dangerous because she is unable to be vaccinated (she had a nearly fatal reaction to the flu vaccine).

Please explain your rationale.



[

 

[Ethel2]

Yeah no.. not if there is a safe and effective vaccine. If there is a safe and effective vaccine... the only person an unvaccinated individual is putting at risk.. is himself/herself.

Second.. if you contend that a single unvaccinated person should be quarantined and prevented from going to public school or working with the public.. on the basis that they constitute such a severe danger to others. Well then there should be NO exceptions for those unvaccinated for any reason. Is that what you support?

Because if you don;t support that.. and you think there should be exceptions for those that can;t have the vaccine for medical reasons... well then you are admitting that your premise that "one unvaccinated person can kill innocents" and therefore needs to be quarantined, is a false premise.



Interesting... so my employee who is a licensed pulmonologist.. and who is currently saving lives because of her expertise... .. when a vaccine becomes available... you want her to be taken away from saving lives... and sent home.. where she loses her healthcare insurance and her livelihood.. because according to you.. the minute that a vaccine becomes available.. she suddenly becomes terribly dangerous because she is unable to be vaccinated (she had a nearly fatal reaction to the flu vaccine).

Please explain your rationale.



[

We have been through this already. I am in favor of mandating vaccinations for anyone who interfaces with the public since there will always be at risk innocent individuals out there; you are not. I am not going to convince you that I am right; you are not going to convince me that you are right.
Time to agree to disagree and move on, though no doubt each of us will find others here to debate on the topic.

 

[jaeger19]

We have been through this already. I am in favor of mandating vaccinations for anyone who interfaces with the public since there will always be at risk innocent individuals out there; you are not. I am not going to convince you that I am right; you are not going to convince me that you are right.
Time to agree to disagree and move on, though no doubt each of us will find others here to debate on the topic.

Yes.. we have been through this. You are unable to explain your rationale. You keep claiming that you would mandate vaccinations for anyone who interfaces with the public as this puts "innocent individuals at risk".
However.. the fact is.. if there is a safe effective vaccine... the only people who would be at risk.. would be the people that choose not to be vaccinated.

Second.. you are unable to explain your rationale.. of why my employee.. an pulmonologist (who is likely unable to tolerate a covid vaccine)... who is currently saving lives because of her expertise. SUDDENLY.. become "dangerous and puts "innocent lives at risk".... the minute a vaccine is available.?

I really hate this copout you folks who don;t believe in logic, science and fact do all the time. " I am not going to convince you that I am right".
Thats blatantly not true. I have given you every opportunity for you to convince me. Lets hear your rationale and logic for the above. But you apparently can;t come up with anything.
The reality is that if you had logic, science and facts behind you.. I would gladly accept your premise. You simply can;t seem to muster it up. Thats not my fault.
Have a nice weekend.

 

[Ethel2]

Yes.. we have been through this. You are unable to explain your rationale. You keep claiming that you would mandate vaccinations for anyone who interfaces with the public as this puts "innocent individuals at risk".
However.. the fact is.. if there is a safe effective vaccine... the only people who would be at risk.. would be the people that choose not to be vaccinated.

Second.. you are unable to explain your rationale.. of why my employee.. an pulmonologist (who is likely unable to tolerate a covid vaccine)... who is currently saving lives because of her expertise. SUDDENLY.. become "dangerous and puts "innocent lives at risk".... the minute a vaccine is available.?

I really hate this copout you folks who don;t believe in logic, science and fact do all the time. " I am not going to convince you that I am right".
Thats blatantly not true. I have given you every opportunity for you to convince me. Lets hear your rationale and logic for the above. But you apparently can;t come up with anything.
The reality is that if you had logic, science and facts behind you.. I would gladly accept your premise. You simply can;t seem to muster it up. Thats not my fault.
Have a nice weekend.

The part in bold in false. You are assuming that the vaccination will be 100% effective. Some will get the vaccine and it just won't work at all; others will get the vaccine and in will work partially. Others will plan to get the vaccine but since distribution is going to be a problem they may be on a waiting list for the vaccine but develop another medical problem that requires attention at a medical facility before that are able to get the shot. Therefore, to protect those who are still vulnerable, healthcare workers (and anyone else who interfaces with the public) should be required to be vaccinated as a condition of employment. They will have a choice, though you don't like the choice. Too bad. Safety comes first.

 

[jaeger19]

The part in bold in false. You are assuming that the vaccination will be 100% effective. .

You are the one assuming that the vaccination will be effective and safe.
If we are to follow your premise.. then anyone that after getting vaccinated.. doesn't develop antibodies.. then needs to be quarantined and kept out of the public because they are then a danger to all the "innocent people".
But go ahead and explain how someone who doesn;t have immunity after the vaccine... is less dangerous who doesn;t have antibodies because they didn;t get the vaccine. Please explain your rationale.

Others will plan to get the vaccine but since distribution is going to be a problem they may be on a waiting list for the vaccine but develop another medical problem that requires attention at a medical facility before that are able to get the shot.

So while they are waiting for the vaccine then.. they should be quarantined from the public because they represent a danger to innocent people?
Please explain your rationale.

Safety comes first.

Well.. so far.. you have pretty much proven that your mandate has nothing to do with safety. So a person who gets vaccinated but it doesn;t work.. and they can get infected and can infect other people... you would allow them to work.
Meanwhile a person who chooses not to get the vaccine, cannot work even though they are exactly the same risk as the person who didn;t get immunity from the vaccine.

Please explain how the person who doesn;t have immunity because the vaccine didn;t work on them... is "safer" to society than the person who also doesn;t have immunity because they didn't get the vaccine all.
Please explain medically why their is a difference in safety between these two individuals.

Also.. you keep failing to address my question.
My employee.. a pulmonologist is currently saving lives. She is also unlikely to be able to be given a covid vaccine since she had a dangerous reaction to a flu vaccine.
Why does she suddenly become dangerous to society the minute that a vaccine becomes available and according to you.. have to be quarantined and unable to continue to save lives?

 

[ClaraD]

Not only did he ask the experts but he also followed their advice. The left, however, has a completely different narrative of things because their entire MO is to find fault with absolutely everything Trump does or says. The left actually ridiculed Trump for pardoning Susan B Anthony!

had he been following the advise of experts, he would have worn a damn mask.

 

[Ethel2]

You are the one assuming that the vaccination will be effective and safe.
If we are to follow your premise.. then anyone that after getting vaccinated.. doesn't develop antibodies.. then needs to be quarantined and kept out of the public because they are then a danger to all the "innocent people".
But go ahead and explain how someone who doesn;t have immunity after the vaccine... is less dangerous who doesn;t have antibodies because they didn;t get the vaccine. Please explain your rationale.

"Safe and effective" doesn't mean 100% effective. Fauci said that we will be lucky if the vaccine is 70% effective. If both the healthcare provider and patient, for example, are both vaccinated there is a much better chance that the patient will not get sick than if only one is vaccinated. Its an extra layer of protection in case the vaccine did not generate an immune response in the patient.

So while they are waiting for the vaccine then.. they should be quarantined from the public because they represent a danger to innocent people?
Please explain your rationale.

If they are exposed to Covid they should stay quarantined. I agree. If they are simply in the vulnerable category normal precautions would suffice.



Well.. so far.. you have pretty much proven that your mandate has nothing to do with safety. So a person who gets vaccinated but it doesn;t work.. and they can get infected and can infect other people... you would allow them to work.
Meanwhile a person who chooses not to get the vaccine, cannot work even though they are exactly the same risk as the person who didn;t get immunity from the vaccine.

If there is a 70% chance that the vaccine is effective I would take my chances allowing them to work. Another alternative (and this happened to me with the Hep B vaccine) is that they can get an antibody titer to make SURE it worked. Not a bad idea for healthcare workers.

Please explain how the person who doesn;t have immunity because the vaccine didn;t work on them... is "safer" to society than the person who also doesn;t have immunity because they didn't get the vaccine all.
Please explain medically why their is a difference in safety between these two individuals.

He isn't safer. But a vaccinated person is more likely to be safe than an unvaccinated person. Therefore, vaccinate anyone who interfaces with the public to protect vulnerable people. If 70% is as effective as it gets, I'll take it.

Also.. you keep failing to address my question.
My employee.. a pulmonologist is currently saving lives. She is also unlikely to be able to be given a covid vaccine since she had a dangerous reaction to a flu vaccine.

Just because she has a bad reaction to one vaccine does not mean she will have a bad reaction to others. I would have her check to see if the same reagents are used in both. If she is eligible, then should should have the vaccine. Otherwise, a decision will have to be made. Her circumstance is unusual, I think you will have to agree. Very few people have a problem with the flu vaccine. If she is at risk for another adverse reaction she would be exempt from the Covid vaccine based on medical reasons. Thats fine with me.

Why does she suddenly become dangerous to society the minute that a vaccine becomes available and according to you.. have to be quarantined and unable to continue to save lives?

If a vaccine is available and she has no medical reason NOT to get it she is potentially not availing herself of all her options to protect her patients. Pretty simple.

 

[Gondwanaland]

I believe if the vaccine(s) isn't free, easily available, and efficacious, there will be a challenge in encouraging near-total compliance.

Hell no. I'm not taking it, mandatory or not, at least for a good year. It's been pushed through way too fast with little of the safety measures that are usually taken for new vaccines. I'll let y'all spend a year or so as guinea pigs before I ever even consider taking it.

 

[jaeger19]

Safe and effective" doesn't mean 100% effective. Fauci said that we will be lucky if the vaccine is 70% effective. If both the healthcare provider and patient, for example, are both vaccinated there is a much better chance that the patient will not get sick than if only one is vaccinated. Its an extra layer of protection in case the vaccine did not generate an immune response in the patient.

Well..then.. what about all those people who are walking around who are then not immune.
f

they are exposed to Covid they should stay quarantined. I agree. If they are simply in the vulnerable category normal precautions would suffice.

Whoa.. so if they are not immune because the vaccine didn;t work for them.. they can walk around and work.. unless knowingly exposed to covid.
But if they are not immune because they choose not to get vaccinated.. they have to be kept away from the public because they are a danger???
Please explain your rationale... why medically.. is the person without immunity due to failure of the vaccine.. safe to walk around and work with "normal precautions?
But the person with the same LACK OF IMMUNITY.. due to not choosing to get vaccinated... NOT safe to walk around and work with normal precautions.??

Please explain the medical difference in regards to threat level.

He isn't safer

Bingo..and right there you are admitting that your mandate is not about safety.

Just because she has a bad reaction to one vaccine does not mean she will have a bad reaction to others

Actually considering the similarities between Covid and various flu's... its a pretty good guess that she may have a bad reaction to the vaccine.

Her circumstance is unusual, I think you will have to agree. Very few people have a problem with the flu vaccine. If she is at risk for another adverse reaction she would be exempt from the Covid vaccine based on medical reasons. Thats fine with me.

Okay.. but that means that your premise that mandating the vaccine is about safety is pure bunk.

Her being unvaccinated because of medical reasons.. means she is just as "dangerous".. as someone not vaccinated by choice.

Frankly.. you really should just admit to yourself that your reason for the mandate is not because of safety.. its really because you wish to punish people who do not conform to your ideology.

 

[Ethel2]

Hell no. I'm not taking it, mandatory or not, at least for a good year. It's been pushed through way too fast with little of the safety measures that are usually taken for new vaccines. I'll let y'all spend a year or so as guinea pigs before I ever even consider taking it.

No one is going to force you to take a vaccine. However, its likely that if your job interfaces with the public in a significant way and you refuse the vaccine you will need to find a line of work where you can work from home or in a situation where your exposure to the public is less. You will have a choice.

 

[jaeger19]

Hell no. I'm not taking it, mandatory or not, at least for a good year. It's been pushed through way too fast with little of the safety measures that are usually taken for new vaccines. I'll let y'all spend a year or so as guinea pigs before I ever even consider taking it.

Just so you know.. thats really not true. The safety the vaccine will be just as assured as a vaccine that was not fast tracked.
What will be in question will be its effectiveness. That requires a lot more testing. Safety does not.

 

[jaeger19]

No one is going to force you to take a vaccine. However, its likely that if your job interfaces with the public in a significant way and you refuse the vaccine you will need to find a line of work where you can work from home or in a situation where your exposure to the public is less. You will have a choice.

Yeah.. see.. all you are doing by stating this is making people LESS likely to take the vaccine.. by threatening them with take the vaccine or lose your job.
I wish you would really stop.

 

[Ethel2]

Well..then.. what about all those people who are walking around who are then not immune.

If it works 70% of the time then only 30% of the people will be vaccinated but not immune. There would be a marked reduction in the number of Covid cases and Covid deaths if everyone was vaccinated. If we got everyone vaccinated we would have herd immunity to an extent.

Whoa.. so if they are not immune because the vaccine didn;t work for them.. they can walk around and work.. unless knowingly exposed to covid.
But if they are not immune because they choose not to get vaccinated.. they have to be kept away from the public because they are a danger???
Please explain your rationale... why medically.. is the person without immunity due to failure of the vaccine.. safe to walk around and work with "normal precautions?
But the person with the same LACK OF IMMUNITY.. due to not choosing to get vaccinated... NOT safe to walk around and work with normal precautions.??

Please explain the medical difference in regards to threat level.

Sure. Easily done, though nothing I am going to say will convince you, and nothing you will say will convince me of your point of view.
If we get 70% of the people to gain immunity thats 70% of the people who cannot infect susceptible individuals. It would result in a reduction (though not an elimination) of Covid transmission. I will take that.



Bingo..and right there you are admitting that your mandate is not about safety.

Its entirely about the safety of innocent individuals. Totally about safety, and about taking every reasonable precaution to protect those who are vulnerable. Mandating a vaccine for people who interface with the public is an entirely reasonable approach.

Actually considering the similarities between Covid and various flu's... its a pretty good guess that she may have a bad reaction to the vaccine.


Okay.. but that means that your premise that mandating the vaccine is about safety is pure bunk.

Her being unvaccinated because of medical reasons.. means she is just as "dangerous".. as someone not vaccinated by choice.

Frankly.. you really should just admit to yourself that your reason for the mandate is not because of safety.. its really because you wish to punish people who do not conform to your ideology.

Incorrect. You think that because it follows your narrative. Everything I have proposed is ENTIRELY about safety. If your pulmologist is one of 10 staff members and she is the only one not vaccinated then that means nine of the staff members are doing their best to protect innocent people.

Your problem, like many of the dumbasses out there, is that you do not like being told what to do, even if it is for the greater good. At some point you will just have to swallow the upcoming laws is my guess. Just like you aren't allowed to endanger others by driving drunk, looting, shooting a gun in a residential neighborhood etc etc, laws are made to protect the public against dumbasses who do not know how to behave. SImilarly, you will likely not get to unnecessarily endanger others by choosing not to get vaccinated with a safe and effective vaccine if you deal with the public.

 

[Ethel2]

Yeah.. see.. all you are doing by stating this is making people LESS likely to take the vaccine.. by threatening them with take the vaccine or lose your job.
I wish you would really stop.

Prove it.
You do sound a lot like a six year old child when told he has to take out the trash.....

"I don't want to...I WON'T DO IT....I won't...I won't".
Learn to place nicely with others. You live in a community, not a bubble. Your actions affect others. Deal with that fact.

 

[Gondwanaland]

Just so you know.. thats really not true. The safety the vaccine will be just as assured as a vaccine that was not fast tracked.
What will be in question will be its effectiveness. That requires a lot more testing. Safety does not.

Wrong. A fast-tracked vaccine does not allow for the time to see potential longer term side effects, etc..

 

[Ethel2]

Wrong. A fast-tracked vaccine does not allow for the time to see potential longer term side effects, etc..

The short term safety concerns have been addressed. The long term safety concerns will not be addressed for months or years. We do not have months or years. The IHME model predicts THREE THOUSAND DEATH A DAY by the end of December.

You tell those families that we can wait years until a vaccine can be proven totally safe.

 

[Gondwanaland]

The short term safety concerns have been addressed. The long term safety concerns will not be addressed for months or years. We do not have months or years. The IHME model predicts THREE THOUSAND DEATH A DAY by the end of December.

You tell those families that we can wait years until a vaccine can be proven totally safe.

That's nice. You're welcome to take the vaccine if you are so frightened.

I will not, at least for a good year if not more.
As to the IHME model, they weren't remotely accurate this spring, I see no reason to trust their predictions this Fall/Winter.

US COVID-19 deaths poorly predicted by IHME model

An international group of renowned statisticians from the University of Sydney, Northwestern University and the University of Texas have collaborated to fully investigate the predictive performance of the COVID-19 model developed by Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) – which...

www.sydney.edu.au

 

[Ethel2]

That's nice. You're welcome to take the vaccine if you are so frightened.

I will not, at least for a good year if not more.
As to the IHME model, they weren't remotely accurate this spring, I see no reason to trust their predictions this Fall/Winter.

US COVID-19 deaths poorly predicted by IHME model

An international group of renowned statisticians from the University of Sydney, Northwestern University and the University of Texas have collaborated to fully investigate the predictive performance of the COVID-19 model developed by Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) – which...

www.sydney.edu.au

You will have a choice imo not to take the vaccine. But you may need to find a new job, one that doesn’t interface with the public. You may need to homeschool your kids and have your groceries delivered to your home. At least until the pandemic is over.

 

[Gondwanaland]

You will have a choice imo not to take the vaccine.

Of course I will. Unless some Nazi gets into the Oval Office and overthrows the constitution and sends the military house to house to inject people. In which case, I'm glad I'm well armed.

But you may need to find a new job, one that doesn’t interface with the public. You may need to homeschool your kids and have your groceries delivered to your home. At least until the pandemic is over.

I already work from home. Have since March. Our kids are being homeschooled as we speak, because Public schools are terrible. I'm unsure why I would need to have groceries delivered to my home. You really think grocery stores are going to be demanding people show 'papers please' to show they are vaccinated? Good grief, they have enough issues trying to make people wear masks.

 

[Ethel2]

Of course I will. Unless some Nazi gets into the Oval Office and overthrows the constitution and sends the military house to house to inject people. In which case, I'm glad I'm well armed.


I already work from home. Have since March. Our kids are being homeschooled as we speak, because Public schools are terrible. I'm unsure why I would need to have groceries delivered to my home. You really think grocery stores are going to be demanding people show 'papers please' to show they are vaccinated? Good grief, they have enough issues trying to make people wear masks.

Not aware of many issues making people wear masks. I could envision grocery stores requiring a vaccination certificate for entry. If you choose not to get vaccinated that’s fine-but there may be consequences

 

[Ginger Ale]

Yeah no.. not if there is a safe and effective vaccine. If there is a safe and effective vaccine... the only person an unvaccinated individual is putting at risk.. is himself/herself.

Second.. if you contend that a single unvaccinated person should be quarantined and prevented from going to public school or working with the public.. on the basis that they constitute such a severe danger to others. Well then there should be NO exceptions for those unvaccinated for any reason. Is that what you support?

Because if you don;t support that.. and you think there should be exceptions for those that can;t have the vaccine for medical reasons... well then you are admitting that your premise that "one unvaccinated person can kill innocents" and therefore needs to be quarantined, is a false premise.



Interesting... so my employee who is a licensed pulmonologist.. and who is currently saving lives because of her expertise... .. when a vaccine becomes available... you want her to be taken away from saving lives... and sent home.. where she loses her healthcare insurance and her livelihood.. because according to you.. the minute that a vaccine becomes available.. she suddenly becomes terribly dangerous because she is unable to be vaccinated (she had a nearly fatal reaction to the flu vaccine).

Please explain your rationale.



[

I would think she would want everyone who can be vaccinated to protect her or those who cannot due to medical reasons. It's sort of strange you think she would now be anti-vax for everyone.

I do know some nurses to my surprise who are into QAnon that said they will refuse the vaccine because of Satan and his minions. No joke. They take care of older people coming out of surgery and things of that nature.

Therefore, I think hospitals should require one. The nurses who don't want one can go work for a homeopath. I certainly want my nurse and doctor vaccinated for COVID. I think most people would.

 

[Gondwanaland]

Not aware of many issues making people wear masks. I could envision grocery stores requiring a vaccination certificate for entry. If you choose not to get vaccinated that’s fine-but there may be consequences

Yes, I'm sure you're rubbing your little fascist hands together in glee just imagining it.

 

[Ginger Ale]

Of course I will. Unless some Nazi gets into the Oval Office and overthrows the constitution and sends the military house to house to inject people. In which case, I'm glad I'm well armed.


I already work from home. Have since March. Our kids are being homeschooled as we speak, because Public schools are terrible. I'm unsure why I would need to have groceries delivered to my home. You really think grocery stores are going to be demanding people show 'papers please' to show they are vaccinated? Good grief, they have enough issues trying to make people wear masks.

They already send people to houses in some states to check and see if their homeschooled kids are vaccinated for the regular series of childhood vaccines. Are you saying you'd shot someone who did that at your house?

 

[Ethel2]

Yes, I'm sure you're rubbing your little fascist hands together in glee just imagining it.

awww
Did I get under your skin?
Look: you do NOT have the right to infect other people.
if you become a carrier of the virus then you could potentiallydo just that-unless you are removed from society until the pandemic is over

 

[Gondwanaland]

They already send people to houses in some states to check and see if their homeschooled kids are vaccinated for the regular series of childhood vaccines. Are you saying you'd shot someone who did that at your house?

If they tried to enter my home, most certainly.