Sweeping new vaccine mandates for 100 million Americans

[prometeus]

The vac requirements at Fox are even stricter.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

I have noticed you always resort of name calling when you have no argument.

I am describing Trump supporters and Republicans, in general, as being scaredy-cats for being too afraid to take a vaccine. I’m certainly not taking about you, and I don’t know why you are acting so defensively.

You don't consider thousand of dead a serious side effect?

You are talking about the CDC system for reporting adverse effects known as VAERS. This system reports something like 7,300 deaths since the vaccinations began. It simply vacuums up all reports of deaths if the deaths take place soon after someone gets vaccinated. Based on how the mRNA vaccines work (Pfizer, Moderna) it’s very likely that the vast majority of reported deaths has absolutely nothing to do at all with the mRNA vaccines.

You don't consider developing Guillain-Barre syndrome a serious side effect?

The Johnson and Johnson vaccine is the only vaccine known to be associated with Guilliane Barre syndrome. So if someone is worried about that they should take the Moderna or Pfizer vaccine. The Johnson and Johnson vaccine is much more like regular vaccines — which, yes have always had risks associated with them — and does not use mRNA technology.

You don't consider myocarditis and pericarditis as serious side effects?

No I don’t, not at all, you have a much higher risk of heart inflammation if you get Covid-19. And the heart inflammation associated with the vaccine is very rare and in the vast majority of the vaccine-induced inflammation cases patient recovery occurs quickly.

Anyone saying their are no dangerous side effects is not informed.

At no point in this thread have I ever said there are zero side effects. I have made a deliberate effort in every single post to say the risk of side effects is extremely low using phrases like “virtually no side effects” and nearly “no side effects” because there are a handful of deaths directly linked to mRNA vaccinations (out of billions of doses administered). You see a bigger problem with Johnson and Johnson and the Astra Zeneca vaccines but those are not the ones we are mostly using in the US.

 

[Ethel2]

I hate to do this to you because you don't nit pick and you argue in good faith. However IMO I think the distinction is important enough to point out.

The vaccine mandate isn't for 100 million people. It applies to everyone. It is a dangerous road to head down, in my honest opinion.

If this is some sort of government plot to control the lives of ordinary citizens where were all the intrusive mandates and laws BEFORE the pandemic? May the government is just doing its best in response to a national disaster to do what is necessary to mitigate the pandemic here.

 

[jaeger19]

Maybe because only people like you can catch being fat from others?

Wtf are you talking about?

 

[W_Heisenberg]

So you are not capable of understanding the difference between encourage and mandate?

I’m just saying that whether it’s through encouragement or through coercion I think it’s good public health policy — in general — for the government to do things to increase vaccination rates. In my recent post I was thinking and writing about this a little abstractly and not focusing specifically on this Biden mandate.

The FDA and the CDC have not come out in favor of mandating vaccinations. Some of us believe in science. Others are political lemmings.

The science says nearly everyone over the age of 12 should get vaccinated immediately.

The decision to implement a mandate though is a political decision. It’s a question only politics can answer.

 

[Cope]

let me know when you can infect someone else with obesity the same as you can infect them with a virus.

My point of contention is NOT about infectiousness, at all. Understand that please, you all. My contention is that once the government can mandate that line, then there is no point at which they cannot cross (for the good of all)

Obesity does affect the population.
As does smoking, as does alcohol, as does heart disease, gay marriage, COVID. There can be an argument made that the government needs more and more control and mandate a fix for almost anything, using the public well being as the excuse.

Either you refuse the see the slope or you don't care about government intrusion.

 

[prometeus]

Wtf are you talking about?

About your moronic comparing Covid to obesity.

 

[Lovebug]

And where does government power for the greater good stop.
Should we mandate people lose weight and penalize them off they don’t. After all it is the second leading cause of preventable death in America.

Obesity isn't contagious.

 

[braindrain]

Have you figured out why the CDC recommends vaccination for covid and supports mandates..
And why it doesn't call for mandates for obesity reduction?

Still can’t answer the question huh. Why am I not surprised.
And just FYI I recommend everyone get vaccinated and have been for months.

 

[braindrain]

My point of contention is NOT about infectiousness, at all. Understand that please, you all. My contention is that once the government can mandate that line, then there is no point at which they cannot cross (for the good of all)

Obesity does affect the population.
As does smoking, as does alcohol, as does heart disease, gay marriage, COVID. There can be an argument made that the government needs more and more control and mandate a fix for almost anything, using the public well being as the excuse.

Either you refuse the see the slope or you don't care about government intrusion.

And this is exactly what I have been talking about. Once you start crossing the line that the government can force people to do what they want under the name of the greater good there really is no end to what you could claim is needed.
Some people are just all to happy to allow government use force as long as it’s something they support not realizing that one that has been done it’s all too easy for government to use force for things they don’t support.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

And this is exactly what I have been talking about. Once you start crossing the line that the government can force people to do what they want under the name of the greater good there really is no end to what you could claim is needed.
Some people are just all to happy to allow government use force as long as it’s something they support not realizing that one that has been done it’s all too easy for government to use force for things they don’t support.

My point of contention is NOT about infectiousness, at all. Understand that please, you all. My contention is that once the government can mandate that line, then there is no point at which they cannot cross (for the good of all)

Obesity does affect the population.
As does smoking, as does alcohol, as does heart disease, gay marriage, COVID. There can be an argument made that the government needs more and more control and mandate a fix for almost anything, using the public well being as the excuse.

Either you refuse the see the slope or you don't care about government intrus

Your arguments are facetious and hypocritical. We already do things like force children to get vaccinated before entering school for the greater good, use the draft to force people to fight in wars for the country where they often incur a great risk of dying for the greater good, imprison drug abusers for taking illegal drugs for the own good and also to discourage drug abuse in others, we send people to prison for willfully refusing to pay their share of taxes. And many of the same people complaining about this mandate would have no problem immediately outlawing abortion.

Far right-wing Trump supporters, in order to fight against the CHICOMS and their deep state operatives for the greater good, were willing to tolerate a crazy, divisive, and corrupt president who nearly engaged in a coup, risking a second Civil War, and despite what happened on Jan 6th, the vast majority of his supporters would still vote for him again, in their mind, for the greater good.

The question of mandating vaccines isn’t about there being some slippery slope. We already have a range of things, certain exceptions to the concept of individual rights, the government does to coerce its citizens to do something for the greater good. And If there is an issue compelling enough for Trump supporters and Republicans to support they have no problem at all supporting or participating in this coercion.

The real issue is this: is the infringement on someone’s rights in this case practically necessary, justified, is it worth it?

Is this a situation like childhood vaccinations, or drunk driving, or drug abuse, or the draft, where we think it’s worth it to coerce citizens to do something or not do something for the greater good.

And what Trump supporters and Republicans have decided, for the most part, is that they don’t think coercing people into getting a free and virtually risk-less vaccination is worth the 1,800 Americans who are dying every day now. And, further, what’s clear based on this thread, they’ve also adopted a whole range of lies and propaganda to justify their argument, even going so far as saying the vaccine is useless, or that the real Covid-19 death toll is inaccurate, and so on. If they were honest they would just say they think coercing people into getting a free and virtually risk-less vaccine is not worth the 1,800 Americans dying every day, that their right to infect other people with their contagious illnesses is more important than the right of other people not to die from their contagious illnesses.

 

[Cope]

...

The real issue is this: is the infringement on someone’s rights in this case practically necessary, justified, is it worth it?

...

I whole heartedly agree with you.

Everyone is going to be ok with the line in a different spot, ala abortion.

 

[braindrain]

Your arguments are facetious and hypocritical. We already do things like force children to get vaccinated before entering school for the greater good, use the draft to force people to fight in wars for the country where they often incur a great risk of dying for the greater good, imprison drug abusers for taking illegal drugs for the own good and also to discourage drug abuse in others, we send people to prison for willfully refusing to pay their share of taxes. And many of the same people complaining about this mandate would have no problem immediately outlawing abortion.

Far right-wing Trump supporters, in order to fight against the CHICOMS and their deep state operatives for the greater good, were willing to tolerate a crazy, divisive, and corrupt president who nearly engaged in a coup, risking a second Civil War, and despite what happened on Jan 6th, the vast majority of his supporters would still vote for him again, in their mind, for the greater good.

The question of mandating vaccines isn’t about there being some slippery slope. We already have a range of things, certain exceptions to the concept of individual rights, the government does to coerce its citizens to do something for the greater good. And If there is an issue compelling enough for Trump supporters and Republicans to support they have no problem at all supporting or participating in this coercion.

The real issue is this: is the infringement on someone’s rights in this case practically necessary, justified, is it worth it?

Is this a situation like childhood vaccinations, or drunk driving, or drug abuse, or the draft, where we think it’s worth it to coerce citizens to do something or not do something for the greater good.

And what Trump supporters and Republicans have decided, for the most part, is that they don’t think coercing people into getting a free and virtually risk-less vaccination is worth the 1,800 Americans who are dying every day now. And, further, what’s clear based on this thread, they’ve also adopted a whole range of lies and propaganda to justify their argument, even going so far as saying the vaccine is useless, or that the real Covid-19 death toll is inaccurate, and so on. If they were honest they would just say they think coercing people into getting a free and virtually risk-less vaccine is not worth the 1,800 Americans dying every day, that their right to infect other people with their contagious illnesses is more important than the right of other people not to die from their contagious illnesses.

I honestly don’t care about your long boring trump rant. I am not a trump supporter and don’t care about that clown in the least.
And the fact that your arguments always just have to fall back on BUT TRUMP just shows the lack of depth of that argument.

Just because we do something is not justification we do more of the same. Though it does help prove my point that once we start down the path of using government force for the good of the people done will want it to never stop sorry I prefer personal liberty.

You only need to get vaccinated to go to public schools.
The draft is no longer a thing. Maybe you have heard.
I don’t support the war on drugs so you are just helping prove my point with that one.
And yes people who don’t want to pay their share of the taxes go to jail.
I am pro choice so there’s that.

 

[prometeus]

once we start down the path of using government force for the good of the people done will want it to never stop sorry I prefer personal liberty.

Well, that does depend on the government we the people choose, does it not? That is if we do manage to keep our democracy intact.
People keep saying 'the government this, the government that' as if the government was some alien force imposed on us, when in reality it is us, our parents, kids, brothers and sisters, our friends and our neighbors and we chose them.

 

[Cope]

Well, that does depend on the government we the people choose, does it not? That is if we do manage to keep our democracy intact.
People keep saying 'the government this, the government that' as if the government was some alien force imposed on us, when in reality it is us, our parents, kids, brothers and sisters, our friends and our neighbors and we chose them.

The government used to be as you state, how about today?
The government really isn't our parents or brothers or neighbors. It is the elite, those 1%ers that are often above the you and I's, they don't interact much with us, they usually fail to speak for us, except in soundbites.

We do elect them, that much is true, and we should expect way better than anyone but Trump ...

 

[prometeus]

The government used to be as you state, how about today?

Today it is what we voted in

The government really isn't our parents or brothers or neighbors.

Did you not vote for them?

It is the elite, those 1%ers that are often above the you and I

Who voted for them? "We" did or at least we did not vote for our parents, brothers, etc.

We do elect them, that much is true, and we should expect way better than anyone but Trump ...

As long as we can vote we can still do it.

 

[Chomsky]

I hate to do this to you because you don't nit pick and you argue in good faith. However IMO I think the distinction is important enough to point out.

The vaccine mandate isn't for 100 million people. It applies to everyone. It is a dangerous road to head down, in my honest opinion.

Technically, 'no'. But yes - it will ripple through-out society. No doubt. Just like when the feds led the way with employee drug testing, which also spread everywhere, That's why I'm concerned with federal employees not having a 'mask-test-distance' opt-out.

 

[Ethel2]

Technically, 'no'. But yes - it will ripple through-out society. No doubt. Just like when the feds led the way with employee drug testing, which also spread everywhere, That's why I'm concerned with federal employees not having a 'mask-test-distance' opt-out.

Unfortunately a "mask-test-distance" option is not a substitute for a vaccine. Its in ADDITION to a vaccine but if you get infected it won't protect you from getting seriously ill.

 

[Slavister]

Just like when the feds led the way with employee drug testing, which also spread everywhere,

It spread everywhere? I've never been drug tested in my life.

(Back to vaccines though, I of course believe everyone who qualifies should get the vaccine barring medical reasons - but proposed mandates do NOT accomplish that)

 

[Slavister]

Your arguments are facetious and hypocritical. We already do things like force children to get vaccinated before entering school for the greater good

Just because we do something is not justification we do more of the same. Though it does help prove my point that once we start down the path of using government force for the good of the people done will want it to never stop sorry I prefer personal liberty.

You only need to get vaccinated to go to public schools.

So following your argument, you are AGAINST mandates for public school vaccinations, right?

Otherwise, you are on that exact slippery slope that is unacceptable.

 

[Chomsky]

It spread everywhere? I've never been drug tested in my life.

(Back to vaccines though, I of course believe everyone who qualifies should get the vaccine barring medical reasons - but proposed mandates do NOT accomplish that)

Alright, 'nearly everywhere'.

I haven't seen any employment in the last 20 years, that hasn't involved drug testing. Even pizza drivers get tested. Gig workers may not get tested, but pretty much all hired employees do.

 

[Chomsky]

Unfortunately a "mask-test-distance" option is not a substitute for a vaccine. Its in ADDITION to a vaccine but if you get infected it won't protect you from getting seriously ill.

That may be true, but I believe the option should be tried - before moving to the 'no option' mandate. In fact, that's the crux of my position.

 

[Slavister]

Alright, 'nearly everywhere'.

I haven't seen any employment in the last 20 years, that hasn't involved drug testing. Even pizza drivers get tested. Gig workers may not get tested, but pretty much all hired employees do.

I was honestly confused by your statement. So tried to do a little research on this. I can't seem to find number of people affected. I found bits and pieces here and there - perhaps you can find a better source of info...

Found this for number of employers:

"When the American Management Association first started polling employers on whether they subjected their employees to drug tests, in 1987, 21 percent said they did. By 1996, the number was up to 81 percent. But that percentage steadily declined through 2004, the last time the AMA asked employers about drug testing, when the number was down to 62 percent."

According to this random 2020 blog?: 56% of employers.

I assume this includes employers that require FEW of their employees to be drug tested.

According to this:

"James Reidy, a labor lawyer who consults with companies on drug testing, says many firms are prudently dropping pre-employment drug tests for positions and industries that aren’t safety sensitive.

Drug testing "is no longer widespread,” says Reidy, with the firm Sheehan Phinney in Manchester, New Hampshire. “They’re doing it for certain positions.”"


According to this, only 2% of job postings required a drug test.

So... sorry... not "nearly everywhere"... but feel free to prove me wrong if you have some data

 

[Ethel2]

That may be true, but I believe the option should be tried - before moving to the 'no option' mandate. In fact, that's the crux of my position.

It has been tried. How long have we been testing and recommending masks/ distancing? Yet we are still having a spike in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. You want to wait until fall and winter when, predictably, we will have yet another spike because everyone is indoors more and the holidays are approaching? I think time has run out for the refuseniks. I think it’s past time to get serious about this and require proof of vaccination to enter any public or private place other than your own home. Will we get everyone to then comply with getting vaccinated? Of course not. But we will increase the numbers. And that’s the goal-tighter and tighter screws to the covidiots who are responsible for perpetuating the pandemic.

 

[Chomsky]

I was honestly confused by your statement. So tried to do a little research on this. I can't seem to find number of people affected. I found bits and pieces here and there - perhaps you can find a better source of info...

Found this for number of employers:

"When the American Management Association first started polling employers on whether they subjected their employees to drug tests, in 1987, 21 percent said they did. By 1996, the number was up to 81 percent. But that percentage steadily declined through 2004, the last time the AMA asked employers about drug testing, when the number was down to 62 percent."

According to this random 2020 blog?: 56% of employers.

I assume this includes employers that require FEW of their employees to be drug tested.

According to this:

"James Reidy, a labor lawyer who consults with companies on drug testing, says many firms are prudently dropping pre-employment drug tests for positions and industries that aren’t safety sensitive.

Drug testing "is no longer widespread,” says Reidy, with the firm Sheehan Phinney in Manchester, New Hampshire. “They’re doing it for certain positions.”"


According to this, only 2% of job postings required a drug test.

So... sorry... not "nearly everywhere"... but feel free to prove me wrong if you have some data

Thanks for your efforts.

But while I do thank you for your extensive sources, the first was inaccessible behind a pay-wall, the third claims a 'decrease' without giving a number (that I easily see), and the last claims 2% - which means your data is all over the place & inconsistent.

(Actually, I'd argue the want adds are irrelevant - your only claim is the ad itself does not include drug-testing)

A quick random Google I just did, shows 80%!

According to a2016 research paper, published in the Journal of Toxins, approximately 80% of U.S corporations conduct drug testing in their workplace.

Employee Drug Testing in America is Widespread

Drug abuse costs American companies approximately $276 billion each year in lost productivity and healthcare costs, but testing is widespread.

www.usdrugtestcenters.com

My use of 'everywhere' was metaphorical. However, if you want to be technical - I think it's safe to say, 'employee drug testing is prevalent'. I'd also opine, 'it is more prevalent in corporate & government employment'. So if if you're self-employed or not employed in corporate of governance, then you may not have encountered it. Regardless, it is common & prevalent.