- Joined
- Apr 28, 2015
- Messages
- 85,685
- Reaction score
- 72,374
- Location
- Third Coast
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
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.
I am not sure of the legality of a federal mandate that would require vaccination. But I am quite sure that the power to force the states (or businesses) to do so exists. The federal government controls a lot of the money that is sent to the states. They could threaten to withhold these funds until the states are compliant. The answer to compelling compliance lies in affecting the wallets of the covidiots. And I am quite sure that the President is considering all his options.It has never been tried by federal mandate.
And that's the subject of our conversation.
You'll get no argument from me, here.
I am not sure of the legality of a federal mandate that would require vaccination.
But I am quite sure that the power to force the states (or businesses) to do so exists. The federal government controls a lot of the money that is sent to the states. They could threaten to withhold these funds until the states are compliant.
The answer to compelling compliance lies in affecting the wallets of the covidiots. And I am quite sure that the President is considering all his options.
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%!
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.
I just stop short of not allowing an employment 'mask-test-distance' option, firstly.
Freedom is an illusion. You aren’t free to make choices that aren’t reasonably available. For example unless you are willing to suffer severe consequences:It is indeed where you draw the line, only the line is what governmental intrusion you deem acceptable into personal decisions.
Freedom to choose is the preeminent existential right, power, gift, whatever you wish to call it.
Government limiting that right needs to be back with a lot, a LOT of good reason.
Currently, it is far from it in my eyes. I say this having gotten the vaccine some few months back. (of my own personal choice)
If there is a legal precedent for a vaccine mandate at the federal, it is not contained in Jacobson v Massachusetts. The Supreme Court's ruling in that cast was confined to only what the state's could mandate for a public health emergency, not what the federal government could mandate for same. It's why I asked anyone with more legal scholarship than I to provide that citation if such exists and why I believe the General Welfare clause in the Constitution would be sufficient justification for issuing such.Can you point out where the Supreme Court specifically excluded the Federal government from mandating vaccines? saying the state is able to do it, does not exclude the feds from doing it....remember, there are things that states and the federal government can regulate...
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.
Sorry, but we all just can't kneel under the same boot with you or do so simply because you order it. Nor is it a good choice to "claim" that such is being done for the "good of everyone and society". Because it's still our rites that are being walked on.You think "forcing" children to be vaccinated for childhood diseases before they attend school is "authoritarian" too? It's called doing the right thing and no more people were not willing to take the vaccine and that is the reason for the mandates. Sorry but we force things on people that are good for them and for society. Refusing the vaccine for political reasons is not valid and cannot be made to be.
You will either "kneel" or be ostracized and I do not care what satanic "rites" of yours are being walked on either. You can choose to live in this society or die outside of it. I really don't care either way.Sorry, but we all just can't kneel under the same boot with you or do so simply because you order it. Nor is it a good choice to "claim" that such is being done for the "good of everyone and society". Because it's still our rites that are being walked on.
Driving drunk is already against the law, so injecting that into the conversation is worthless. As well as if someone's brakes fail, no matter if they didn't have them checked. It's a mechanical issue that can happen even if they were to keep up the maintenance.So if someone drives drunk and kills someone accidentally they should be let off without punishment because it was not their intention to kill anyone?
If someone’s brakes fail because they neglected to keep their brakes in good working order and they accidentally kill someone in a car crash because they couldn’t brake in time there should be no consequences because that was not their intent?
I would support my government sticking to the powers that they have, and not to break our constitutional rights. If it becomes a problem of information and following simple guidelines. Then that can easily be done on a standard social basis, as it's been done for over a year now.No, not exactly. There a variety of different ways to compel or persuade people to get vaccinated. In some places they are paying people to get vaccinated, for instance. When it comes to do something harsh like actual forced quarantines that would be the last thing I would accept. But are you seriously suggesting to me that if there was a deadly pandemic that was just as contagious as Covid-19 but far more deadly, let’s say it had an 80 percent death rate, you wouldn’t support increasingly coercive measures towards people who didn’t give a shit that 80 percent of the people they infected were going to die, or that the people they infected would go on to spread it to hundreds of others or possibly thousands of others because of the way contagious viruses spread at an exponential rate?
Were it not coming at the cost of personal freedoms I would have to agree. That and the usual list of effects, and issues the vaccine has. Can be just as standard as ever.We are talking about the individual burden of getting vaccinated. There is virtually no individual burden to get vaccinated and the benefit to society is great. If there is no cost to the vaccine and the vaccine has virtually no side effects there is simply no excuse to refuse to get vaccinated.
That's an issue you should bring up with the other pro-mandate individuals. Because even new yorks mandates lacks most of those typical medical exemptions. So it's just as likely that other cities/states could follow suit.And if a cancer patient should not get vaccinated there is no reason to compel them to get vaccinated.
You keep trying to justify rejection of a mandate policy based on edge cases or a rare minority of people, but this is not the thing that should guide our policies, and if there’s a situation where some person should not get vaccinated there should absolutely be an exception
Nearly any action an adult takes in the US, can come with the risk of harm or death to anyone else. Cars and traffic laws are secondary to the issue.Our society considers driving a car to be a privilege only because we’ve decided to make the act of driving a car a privilege. We’ve collectively decided to make driving a car something that isn’t necessarily a sort of fundamental right that can’t be taken away.
And even if you don’t agree with that point the analogy still makes sense in terms of an individual’s obligation to society. An individual is obligated to obey traffic rules that a community sets. An individual is obligated to not drive drunk because doing so raises the risk of harm or death TO OTHER people in a community.
The children are the ones being forced here, the parents are set with the responsibility of following that guideline. Something that is already set into our society and if they don't then the child will have to get their schooling elsewhere.Why are you okay with forcing children to get vaccinated prior to attending school but not okay with mandates related to Covid vaccinations.
Any person would agree to have neither, but that's not the issue here now is it?We’ve administered billions of doses.
We know there are some minor side effects that are common:
So far, the most common physical reactions to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are tiredness, headache, muscle pain, chills, fever, nausea, sore throat, diarrhea, and vomiting.
Vaccine Side Effects vs. COVID-19 Damage
Experts say that even the rare cases of heart inflammation from COVID-19 pale in comparison to the serious damage the disease itself can cause.www.healthline.com
We know serious side effects are extremely rare:
Myocarditis (heart ibeing the most common serious side effect associated with the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines with 3 excess events per 100,000
But keep in mind the risk of heart inflammation is higher if you get infected with Covid!
Heart Problem More Common After Covid-19 Than After Vaccination, Study Finds (Published 2021)
The research did not assess the risks specifically for young males, who are the most likely to develop the rare side effect.www.nytimes.com
So when you balance the risk reward at the individual level there is really no reason not to get vaccinated.
I liked how the health line article above phrases things so I’m copying and pasting it here:
Which would you rather have: muscle fatigue or permanent lung damage?
Would you prefer mild, short-term inflammation around the heart or severe damage to that organ that could lead to heart failure?
Oh I get you there, I do.Damn!
I'm thrilled to see someone with a 'Liberal' moniker, that believes in 'Liberty'!
Unfortunately today, the term 'Liberal' has too often been corrupted by other 'less liberty seeking' 'Left' leaners.
Good work!
(don't know if I'll always agree with you - though - maybe)
Got to love it when the people who claimed to fight against fascist/authoritarian dictators, show their true colors.You will either "kneel" or be ostracized and I do not care what satanic "rites" of yours are being walked on either. You can choose to live in this society or die outside of it. I really don't care either way.
There is nothing fascist or authoritarian about vaccine mandates. They have been the norm in this country since vaccines were invented. What is new is the idea that mandating vaccines are a symbol of lost freedoms. If you want to die just jump off a bridge. No one is stopping you.Got to love it when the people who claimed to fight against fascist/authoritarian dictators, show their true colors.
There's also no "satanic" rights here, or whatever idiocy you were trying to inject.
You're also lying about simple "ostracized". Because it doesn't stop there now does it?
I hope you like your choice, because I'm damn well going to resist when you start throwing woman and children in the furnace.
The US federal government has the right to protect the welfare of the country....they also have the right to regulate interstate commerce.If there is a legal precedent for a vaccine mandate at the federal, it is not contained in Jacobson v Massachusetts. The Supreme Court's ruling in that cast was confined to only what the state's could mandate for a public health emergency, not what the federal government could mandate for same. It's why I asked anyone with more legal scholarship than I to provide that citation if such exists and why I believe the General Welfare clause in the Constitution would be sufficient justification for issuing such.
Driving drunk is already against the law, so injecting that into the conversation is worthless.
As well as if someone's brakes fail, no matter if they didn't have them checked. It's a mechanical issue that can happen even if they were to keep up the maintenance.
I would support my government sticking to the powers that they have, and not to break our constitutional rights.
If it becomes a problem of information and following simple guidelines. Then that can easily be done on a standard social basis, as it's been done for over a year now.
The main issue here is that people are fed up with the governments overreach and willingness to make everyone's lives worse/miserable.
From the very start they wanted social distancing, they got it. Then they wanted mask precautions which they got as well, and that eventually lead to being locked down in our own homes. Which politicians stilled lied about continually, even with other leaders stopping the knockdowns in their own states.
Worst part being is that the democrats had come out early on and promised that there would be no mandates for this, and for some reason people believed them.
Now we get to see that they were directly lying to the populace once again
and my main issues is just how far they'll be willing to take it the next time they decide to act. Besides it's only going to affect us, and not the politicians.
We already know that they reserve special treatment and rules only for themselves.
So why should people trust them this time around?
It's already ballooned to possibly needing boosters ever five months. So who's to say that they can't just take it a step further in the future?
So because Gavin Newsom broke quarantine and had a fancy dinner you think that’s a good reason to not get vaccinated?
What do you mean by taking it a “step further”, and what’s the big deal about getting a booster? What’s wrong with a booster if it strengthens the body’s response to Covid-19, and If the boosters save lives and shorten the duration of illness, especially for those in the high risk categories, why would it be bad for health officials to promote them?
And so what if health officials revise their recommendations? They are revising their recommendations based on data and changing circumstances? That doesn’t make them dishonest, that makes them honest and smart. It would be really stupid of them if they just stuck with their original recommendations and the data indicated something different.
I made this analogy before: imagine you are about to cross the street. You don’t notice any cars so you begin walking across the street. As you walk onto the asphalt you notice a car coming at you that you didn’t notice before. Do you look at this new information and say to yourself, “Hrmms that’s a car and it’s headed right at me. However, I already decided I was going to cross the street so I am going to pretend it’s not there and then let it hit me”
NO!!!! What do you do in response to this new information? You move the HELL out of the way!
Poor analogy. This has nothing to do with fear. It’s about acting rationally to end the pandemic as soon as possible.The analogy doesn't work. You look and don't see a car. You are told a car might come, that cars have come before; to stay on your side of the road to protect yourself and those around you. There's no car you decide that your 99.9 % chance of a successful crossing is worth the risk. You cross the road and those stranded by fear on the otherside want to punish you. Not fair you crossed the road others may want to too.
Were it not coming at the cost of personal freedoms I would have to agree.
That and the usual list of effects, and issues the vaccine has. Can be just as standard as ever.
That's an issue you should bring up with the other pro-mandate individuals. Because even new yorks mandates lacks most of those typical medical exemptions. So it's just as likely that other cities/states could follow suit.
Nearly any action an adult takes in the US, can come with the risk of harm or death to anyone else.
Cars and traffic laws are secondary to the issue.
Something that is already set into our society
and if they don't then the child will have to get their schooling elsewhere.
If that child isn't vaccinated, they are not nearly ejected from society. As we've risked seeing with some of the more blue states proposing such actions.
You can't get gas if you're not vaccinated, you can't use their facility, you can't buy food, and now. It comes with the added issue of not being able to have a job.
In most sense this is akin too have a loaded gun aimed at your head and being told what to do.
Children about to attend school is an issue that rates far lower on a measurable scale here.
Any person would agree to have neither, but that's not the issue here now is it?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?