• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sweeping new vaccine mandates for 100 million Americans

It has been tried.

It has never been tried by federal mandate.

And that's the subject of our conversation.


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.

You'll get no argument from me, here.
 
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.
 
I am not sure of the legality of a federal mandate that would require vaccination.

Agreed. Though under the auspices of an OSHA emergency action, I suspect he will prevail.


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.

Agreed. In fact, we see this with DeSantis at the state level with the FL school system, and we saw it with Trump and CA sanctuary regions.


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.

Well, something has to be done. I just stop short of not allowing an employment 'mask-test-distance' option, firstly.
 
Thanks for your efforts.

But while I do thank you for your extensive sources, the first was inaccessible behind a pay-wall,

Don't discount it - WaPo is pretty good on facts and I quoted relevant part.

the third claims a 'decrease' without giving a number (that I easily see)

Yes - I only included it to indicate that "testing" within a given employer may just mean very limited testing that does not apply to VAST majority of employees.

, and the last claims 2% - which means your data is all over the place & inconsistent.

2% applies to number of employees apparently rather than number of employers. But I agree this is an indication - not a strong data as I admitted in my post.
(Actually, I'd argue the want adds are irrelevant - your only claim is the ad itself does not include drug-testing)

I'd assumed there is an indication whether company marks drug testing as part of their policy when they register at glassdoor - I don't think it's only based on whether it's mentioned in the ad itself. But anyway, I agree that this is not a strong indicator.

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

See, but that's a misleading quote they got in there. If you actually go to the reference where they pulled 80% from, you'd see the actual number is...

"Between 67 and 80% of US corporations have WDT programmes,"

which itself comes from 2009, not 2016 paper. And then that 2009 article itself is behind a paywall - I thought you discard those? ;-).. Abstract of that article says

"This article aims to stimulate re-engagement with workforce drug testing as a current managerial technology emerging in UK organisations and not solely confined to the US."

Hmm... does not sound like the kind of article that would go into depth on true number of people or corporations being tested here in US. Maybe they got their number also from some old (or bad or misquoted?) reference - I would not know about that.


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'.

Maybe 50%? Maybe... ?

I'd also opine, 'it is more prevalent in corporate & government employment'.

Government seems more likely. Corporate... not in the industries I am familiar with but through this research, clearly a lot more places do this than I ever imagined.

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.

Sorry, we must be familiar with different "circles" of people? (Or maybe your circle is much wider than mine :) ) Thanks for educating me on higher prevalence of this than I ever knew of. I still wonder if it's 25%, 50%, 75% of people affected?

I literally know of not a single one - admittedly I have not explicitly asked each and every person I know.
 
Last edited:
I just stop short of not allowing an employment 'mask-test-distance' option, firstly.

I'd guess most corporation had tried that already. It did not work.
 
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)
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:
You can’t choose not to pay taxes
You can’t choose to drive drunk
You can’t choose to light you neighbors house on fire
You can’t choose to send you kid to school without proper vaccines unless there is a medical or religious excuse

Sometimes the penalties for bad behavior make “choice” or “freedom “ a choice in name only when in fact there is no choice.
Hopefully that will soon be the case with getting vaccinated.
 
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...
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.
 
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.

Trump is the problem. Republicans are the problem. They’ve made vaccination a weapon in their culture war against the Democrats. The vaccination rate of Democrats is around 85 percent. The vaccination rate of Republicans is around 50 percent. The vaccination rate of 2020 Trump voters is even lower than the vaccination rate of Republicans.

When I describe Republicans and Trump supporters as being the category of people most against vaccination I am describing the world as it is. The reason for this is quite simple. Republicans and Trump supporters are selfish, ignorant, belligerent assholes.

Just because we do something is not justification we do more of the same.

I’m not suggesting that “just because” we have used government to coerce individuals to do things for the greater good in the past, that is a good enough reason to do it in the future. I think there must be a very good reason to do something like that. I’m attacking your point that a vaccine mandate is some sort of horrendous attack on individual rights that will lead to a slippery slope of tyranny. That’s just a ridiculous comment given all the examples listed above. We do not live in some horrible authoritarian state now despite the exceptions listed above. In a few specific instances we’ve decided it makes sense to make an exception. Why can’t vaccine mandates be another exception?

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.

So, let’s be clear. Do you oppose every instance of the draft as applied in previous wars? Do you oppose prohibitions against drunk driving? Do you oppose childhood vaccinations? Do you oppose bans on abortion either limited or unlimited? Do you oppose criminal penalties against drug users? Do you oppose civil or criminal penalties against people who dump toxic chemicals into a water supply? Do you oppose civil or criminal penalties against people who are extremely careless or negligent?

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

Same thing applies to this. You don’t have to get vaccinated if you don’t work for the government, either directly or as a contractor. So what’s the big deal? If you work for a private company you only need to get tested regularly? What’s all the commotion? It’s nearly the same thing as childhood vaccinations. Also, let’s cut the shit private schools have the same vaccination requirements. The actual number of people who homeschool their kids is actually super small. This is yet another disingenuous point on your part.

The draft is no longer a thing. Maybe you have heard.

Yes. That’s because. We. Don’t. Need. It. We didn’t need a vaccine mandate before a ****ing global pandemic and we won’t need one after. And let’s say there is another big war that requires the mass mobilization of the population? Would you oppose the draft then? And would you oppose it in every circumstance. Get real. Be honest. You’re being totally disingenuous

I don’t support the war on drugs so you are just helping prove my point with that one.

Okay, that’s fine. But you know very wel that Republicans throughout the past few decades have nearly always been more willing to support the war on drugs and imposing harsh sentences.


And yes people who don’t want to pay their share of the taxes go to jail.

Why do they go to jail? They go to prison for the greater good. We have these rules because our government couldn’t function if everyone just stopped paying their taxes.

I am pro choice so there’s that.

That’s fine. I’m referring mostly to the political bloc that is mostly opposed to vaccinations: Republicans and Trump supporters.
 
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.
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.
 
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 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.
 
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?
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.
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?
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?
 
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Why are you okay with forcing children to get vaccinated prior to attending school but not okay with mandates related to Covid vaccinations.
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.

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.
 
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.


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!


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?
Any person would agree to have neither, but that's not the issue here now is it?
 
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)
Oh I get you there, I do.
Like I stated, if it were just an honest suggestion to have everyone vaccinated. It would be something as simple as waiting for them to go out and get them.

But the moment the government stepped up and said "screw your rights", especially after promising that they wouldn't. That can be the kind of thing that pushes American citizens too far.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
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.
 
On the plus side, all those people who are going to quite their jobs over this can finally start filling those fast food jobs that are open right now.
 
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.
The US federal government has the right to protect the welfare of the country....they also have the right to regulate interstate commerce.
 
Driving drunk is already against the law, so injecting that into the conversation is worthless.

Yes, it’s against the law FOR GOOD REASON. State legislatures across the county didn’t wake up one morning and create criminal penalties for drunk driving for shits and giggles. And, of course you want to say the point is worthless! It’s a great point I made! It makes your argument look so stupid!

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.

Well, no, you don’t get punished for failing to maintain your car if you were properly maintaining your car; you get punished for failing to maintain your car in a situation where you had knowledge it needed repair, and doing so would reduce the risk of a futuaccident, but you still failed to take action.

I would support my government sticking to the powers that they have, and not to break our constitutional rights.

I think it’s a reasonable argument to make. I just don’t agree we can’t make an exception in this case just like we do with things like drinm And I think the burden of getting a free and virtually risk free vaccine isn’t that much of an imposition on someone.

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 problem is people aren’t getting vaccinated. They are not following simple guidelines suggesting that if you get vaccinated you will significantly reduce the chances you will infect other people with Covid-19.

The main issue here is that people are fed up with the governments overreach and willingness to make everyone's lives worse/miserable.

How is getting vaccinated a big deal? Getting vaccinated doesn’t make anyone’s life worse or more miserable. What does that have to do with wearing a mask or social distancing. In fact, if more people got vaccinated we wouldn’t have as much of a need to wear masks or social


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.

You don’t get it. If we didn’t use masks and social distance and quarantine millions of Americans would have died.

“They”, whoever “they” is, didn’t impose these various mandates for themselves. These mandates were implemented to save lives. And if “they” means Democrats you must understand that Republicans also imposed similar mandates across the country.

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.

I don’t know to what extent the “promise” of “no vaccine mandates” was ever widely given by Democrats. This was definitely something Biden did say tjoighr

If Republicans didn’t make vaccinations as a political issue to use in their culture war against the Democrats there wouldn’t be any need for it.

Now we get to see that they were directly lying to the populace once again

The situation changed. Is Biden supposed to pretend that 1,800 haven’t been dying every day because spiteful and belligerent Trump supporters can’t trouble themselves to spend a few minutes to get a free and virtually harmless vaccine? How is that Biden’s fault or the dault

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.

Wait, hold on. How far they’ll be willing to take it next time? That’s silly.

Getting vaccinated is NOT a big deal.

We already know that they reserve special treatment and rules only for themselves.

There are thousands upon thousands of Democratic Party elected officials and government officials, the vast majority of them did not have fancy dinners at French Laundry in Napa Valley during the quarantine
 
So why should people trust them this time around?

So because Gavin Newsom broke quarantine and had a fancy dinner you think that’s a good reason to not get vaccinated?


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?

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!
 
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!

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.
 
The problem that they are going to have arguing against what Biden did...is first he used the OSHA law, which has been the law for 50 years...and he still didn't mandate vaccines....you aren't being forced to take a vaccine...if you work for a company with more than 100 people, are a federal government employee, or are a contractor with the federal government...you must take a test at least weekly if you are not vaccinated...it is a testing mandate....because there is a virus out there and people have a right to know that you aren't infected with a deadly virus and just showing up to work....either get the vaccine or get a test...your choice...and companies can mandate that you get the vaccine, because they don't want to test your sorry tail....the only ones mandated to get the vaccine by the federal government are soldiers...and they were also mandated to get the anthrax vaccine..
 
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.
Poor analogy. This has nothing to do with fear. It’s about acting rationally to end the pandemic as soon as possible.
The best analogy is the drunk driving analogy-in both cases you don’t have the right to endanger others without taking proper reasonable precautions.
 
Were it not coming at the cost of personal freedoms I would have to agree.

The personal cost in this case is being coerced into giving up 30 minutes of time for a free vaccine that is virtually harmless, and maybe the slight pain of a jab. The societal benefit is a great reduction in COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths.

But I get it. You don’t think the government should force someone to do something they don’t want to do. But the government does this with other things like drunk driving. I don’t like having to pay 40 to 60 bucks for a taxi or an Uber to take me home after a night out drinking with friends. I don’t like paying taxes. There’s lots of stuff that is annoying or that people don’t want to do that the government makes thek

That and the usual list of effects, and issues the vaccine has. Can be just as standard as ever.

Well, funny you should mention that. The mRNA vaccines don’t have the usual list of side effects. They have fewer side effects than the old type of vaccines

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.

This doesn’t help your argument. In your last post you were trying to argue we shouldn’t implement a policy based on rare/edge cases. Now you are complaining that NY is not making an exception for an edge case. That’s not related to your earlier point.

You need to either abandon your argument against the policy that is based on appealing to edge/rare cases, or you need to argue why we should craft policy based on edge/rare c

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.

Yes, it is true that most human actions involve some risk, but the point about traffic laws is that it’s a domain of human activity where our society has decided it’s risky enough that it’s better to have rules to force people to do stuff they may not want to do in order to re the overall risk of death and injury.

I hate being forced to stop at a red light. I hate being forced to drive a under a certain speed limit. It’s an infringement on individual rights, but it’s better for everyone in the long run.

Something that is already set into our society

So if you accept childhood vaccinations because we are already doing it?

So e already had a vaccine mandate for Covid-19 you’d accept a vaccine mandate for Covid-19?

and if they don't then the child will have to get their schooling elsewhere.

Yes. It’s very coercive isnr


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.

School is like one of the biggest events in a child’s life so I think it’s directly comparable to a work imposed mandate.

Also, only federal employees and contractors must get vaccinated. Everyone else can test out.

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.

None of what you’re writing here is true. Why do you think you can’t get gas or food? Where is thus

In most sense this is akin too have a loaded gun aimed at your head and being told what to do.

Yes, it’s coercive.

No, it’s not nearly as coercive as you’ve incorrectly described.

And it’s similarly to all sorts of coercive things the government does to reduce the overall rate of risk and injury to a population as described before

Children about to attend school is an issue that rates far lower on a measurable scale here.

It’s an analogy, although in this case a very direct comparison. Just like the traffic law examples were analogies. I’m not suggesting it’s more important or less important. And for the sake of argument its importance doesn’t really matter, it’s the principle behind it that’s important.

Also, I would quibble about importance here. Childhood vaccinations save the lives of millions of children all over the world every single year. I think that is very important.
 
Last edited:
Any person would agree to have neither, but that's not the issue here now is it?

Your comment makes absolutely no sense.

That is one of the actual issues we are dealing with.

People are trying to argue against the mandate because of their perception the vaccines carry greater risk than they do

But they are wrong. They are ignorant.

Everyone will eventually catch this virus. It is inevitable.

And if the risk of heart inflammation with the virus is greater than the risk of heart inflammation with the vaccine — everything else being equal — it makes sense to take the vaccine.
 
Back
Top Bottom