Sweeping new vaccine mandates for 100 million Americans

[W_Heisenberg]

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.

Lol. You are being silly. You’re just making up a new analogy, and that’s fine, you can make up a new analogy, but the point I was making is that it makes sense to revise one’s conclusions or understanding of the world based on new information. This is especially helpful in a world that changes often. Public health officials would not be doing their jobs if they stubbornly held to a previous conclusion that new information contradicts. And keep in mind we are dealing with a contagious respiratory virus that frequently mutates.

 

[jaeger19]

About your moronic comparing Covid to obesity.

Yeah.. wrong poster dude... get a grip.

 

[jaeger19]

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.

Asked and answered.

If you can;t understand the difference between a contagious virus thats overrunning the hospital system .. and obesity.. hey.. thats on you.

 

[Objective Voice]

The US federal government has the right to protect the welfare of the country....they also have the right to regulate interstate commerce.

I don't disagree. I'm just saying that particular Supreme Court case doesn't provide the precedent for doing either.

 

[LostinThought]

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.

Really, because "do this or else" doesn't sound like something that an authoritarian government would do?

 

[iguanaman]

Really, because "do this or else" doesn't sound like something that an authoritarian government would do?

It sounds like what America has always done with vaccines since they were invented. The smallpox vaccine was mandatory until 1972 and vaccines are mandatory for all children (including you) attending public schools too. Do you think we have been under authoritarian rule since 1905?

 

[LostinThought]

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!

Yet this isn't drunk driving. Many of these people are like myself and are already vaccinated, but still protesting the mandates in general because of what they represent.

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.

We've already established that it's not risk free and the fact that it could bring worse things from the this and future administrations down the line. Is something that worries a lot of people.

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.

Which is fine so let them get vaccinated like others chose to, but when it comes to the government threatening us to do it. That's where I personaly draw the line.

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

Getting vaccinated isn't a big deal. It's the trampling of our rites that's been the real issue here and not a silly prick in the arm.

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

The jury is still out on that one. States that didn't mask up or lock down as hard as place like the others, still fared much better during the pandemic.

“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.

No in some cases they did it for some other reasons that they decided not to share. You had governors who would shutdown businesses from running during be pandemic, yet they'd allow others that they favored to continue doing as they pleased unabated. Much the same as anti-lockdown protest being scorned and hounded into the dirt. While BLM marches were allowed to do as they pleased, even at the city's detriment.

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.

It's a sign that if he, or his office is willing to go back on their word about something like this. It could be an indication that they'd do far more damaging things in the future and not give it a second thought.
This is not a republican issue. I and many other people who've been stuck here in the center are fed up with much of this. It's a question of our rights and not some silly political lean.

-Biden should at least address the nation as to why he decided to go back on his word. Yet every time we see him getting asked questions, the feed either stops or her just decides that he's done talking. Hell, it Trump's case he would talk at length about anything, even to his detriment.
It's necessity that he address this, as our acting president. Especially when the subject concerns something as crucial as our constitutional rights.

-Wouldn't you agree?
Allowing the government to so easily break our constitutional rights, is not something that should be done lightly. And once that door has been opened there is very little chance of it being closed without some greater issue being had.


-No, they didn't. Only the most important ones were. The once's who're making these exact same decisions for us and we can just as easily see that they don't hold themselves to the same standard. Even those that pretend to do so, only do so while the camera is rolling.
I don't care what political house they follow, Democrat or Republican.
If we can't trust them with something so simple as this, why even trust them with this power at all?

 

[LostinThought]

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.

The only people who're arguing against vaccines, because of the vaccines themselves. Are the same fools that have been doing so since before the 1970s.
This is about our rights, not vaccines.

 

[LostinThought]

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

Once again, this isn't a discussion about drunk driving, nor does it coincide with breaking a law. Like myself there are others who've already been vaccinated and are still speaking out against the mandates.
So the "drunk driving" analogy does not really work here.

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

Were this actually about vaccines, this would be of no issue.

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

Merely pointing out many of the same reasons that people are speaking out against the mandates, and why others are having issues with states that don't apparently care for their personal case.

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.

The driving analogy does less service than the drunk driving one.

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?

I'm fine with the vaccines. I'm not fine with the government threatening me and everyone else, just so we do as they demand.

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.

Yes, forcing a business to organize, test and re-do the same show every week for their entire staff, or else face a hefty fine... sounds like coercion to me.

We also know that a number of these same federal employees will most likely be exempt in some measure. Either though an act from the local office, or even the administration. Portland is already talking about doing so for their police force, and word is trickling down that they will do so for all medical staff as well. However I've yet to see that story substantiated beyond hearsay.

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

I've stated nothing but fact and evidence that we can cite through history. Removing the rights of your citizens is one of the first steps to your government going down a darker path.

Yes, it’s coercive.

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

I've never seen a government action as coercive as this in my lifetime. If I look I could probably find a close second, but I doubt it will be from this century or even this country.

 

[LostinThought]

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

No I think fighting against an authoritarian action is something that each American should do. They can get vaccinated if they like, though I suggest they speak with their doctor.

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.

If the government is willing to trample your rights. Then it's most likely that they're going to do far more and far worse in the future, especially if they know it can easily be gotten away with.
As for health officials changing their stances. I have no issue with that, I worked close enough to the medical field before joining the private sector. That's it's all mostly second nature at this point.

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!

There are far more variables in that analogy than you're giving it credit for.

 

[LostinThought]

It sounds like what America has always done with vaccines since they were invented. The smallpox vaccine was mandatory until 1972 and vaccines are mandatory for all children (including you) attending public schools too. Do you think we have been under authoritarian rule since 1905?

I find it strange how some people can't see the difference between a child possibly being made to go to home school. With the possibly of someone being completely ejected from society, losing the ability to provide for their family etc..

This must be what severe tribal politics/ideologies looks like.

 

[ClaraD]

I don't disagree. I'm just saying that particular Supreme Court case doesn't provide the precedent for doing either.

Yet this isn't drunk driving. Many of these people are like myself and are already vaccinated, but still protesting the mandates in general because of what they represent.

We've already established that it's not risk free and the fact that it could bring worse things from the this and future administrations down the line. Is something that worries a lot of people.

Which is fine so let them get vaccinated like others chose to, but when it comes to the government threatening us to do it. That's where I personaly draw the line.

Getting vaccinated isn't a big deal. It's the trampling of our rites that's been the real issue here and not a silly prick in the arm.

The jury is still out on that one. States that didn't mask up or lock down as hard as place like the others, still fared much better during the pandemic.

No, it isn't drunk driving, its worse. just over 10,000 people die every year in drunk driving crashes....so, for arguments sake, lets say 2 years worth is 20,000 people...bad, but not as bad as Covid that has now killed 684,000 people since the start of the virus in January 2020.

 

[LostinThought]

No, it isn't drunk driving, its worse. just over 10,000 people die every year in drunk driving crashes....so, for arguments sake, lets say 2 years worth is 20,000 people...bad, but not as bad as Covid that has now killed 684,000 people since the start of the virus in January 2020.

Yes, since the start of the pandemic. While those numbers have dropped sharply since then, and are continuing to drop.

 

[iguanaman]

The only people who're arguing against vaccines, because of the vaccines themselves. Are the same fools that have been doing so since before the 1970s.
This is about our rights, not vaccines.

Your rights are not violated because you need to be vaccinated they are enhanced. America is lucky to have enough vaccines for all and mandating them only assure that benefit will not be wasted. It is because you are an American that a vaccine is available for you safety and that of others

 

[ClaraD]

Yes, since the start of the pandemic. While those numbers have dropped sharply since then, and are continuing to drop.

except in states that have low vaccine rates, Florida, Texas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Mississippi are among a few where numbers are on the rise....the states with the highest vaccination rates, have the lowest numbers.

 

[iguanaman]

I find it strange how some people can't see the difference between a child possibly being made to go to home school. With the possibly of someone being completely ejected from society, losing the ability to provide for their family etc..

This must be what severe tribal politics/ideologies looks like.

If you are not vaccinated you are a threat to society and the welfare of our hospitals which we all depend on in health emergencies. If the unvaccinated agreed not to seek hospital treatment for covid maybe they would have a point about freedom but we know that won't happen. They want the benefits of society while refusing a small favor to help support it. Most who are hospitalized for covid regret not being vaccinated and therefore regret we did not force them to. You seem to miss those facts. BTW doesn't dying from covid affect their ability to provide for their family?

 

[W_Heisenberg]

No I think fighting against an authoritarian action is something that each American should do. They can get vaccinated if they like, though I suggest they speak with their doctor.

You are introducing a new point that is unrelated to your previous point.

It’s not fun debating with someone who cares so little about their own argument.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Once again, this isn't a discussion about drunk driving.

It’s an analogy, comparing the use of government force or coercion to modify the behavior of individuals who aren’t think about how their actions affect other people

nor does it coincide with breaking a law. Like myself there are others who've already been vaccinated and are still speaking out against the mandates.
So the "drunk driving" analogy does not really work here.

Were this actually about vaccines, this would be of no issue.

It’s actually about the vaccines.

 

[The Hairy Fiddler]

The only people who're arguing against vaccines, because of the vaccines themselves. Are the same fools that have been doing so since before the 1970s.
This is about our rights, not vaccines.

**** your goddam rights. What about my rights? Why should I have to live in a country that allows a virus to kill 675,000 of my fellow Americans when this disease could be easily controlled? You people are a disgusting lot...you really are.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Once again, this isn't a discussion about drunk driving, nor does it coincide with breaking a law.

I know this isn't a discussion about drunk driving. I am making an analogy to drunk driving.

The same principle can apply to getting vaccinated.

I'm fine with the vaccines. I'm not fine with the government threatening me and everyone else, just so we do as they demand.

Well, I understand your point. You think everyone has the individual right to make other people get sick and die.

I don't.

I don't think people have the right to make other people sick through their carelessness in dealing with a highly contagious virus when there is a perfectly good vaccine they can take.

Yes, forcing a business to organize, test and re-do the same show every week for their entire staff, or else face a hefty fine... sounds like coercion to me.

Oh, no. I agree. It is coercive, and I think it's okay to use the coercive power of government to make people do stuff they don't want to do when their actions impose unreasonable risks on others, like, say, for instance, forcing someone not to drink alcohol before they drive a vehicle on a public road.

I've stated nothing but fact and evidence that we can cite through history. Removing the rights of your citizens is one of the first steps to your government going down a darker path.

Oh, so you're suggesting that after this vaccine mandate we will force unvaccinated people into a situation where they cannot go to the grocery store or go to a gas station?

I've never seen a government action as coercive as this in my lifetime. If I look I could probably find a close second, but I doubt it will be from this century or even this country.

Except we've been doing it for decades when we force children to get vaccinated before they enter public and private schools.

Also, we've done far more coercive things in the past like the draft. I can't think of anything more coercive than forcing someone to fight and risk their life in a war for our country.

 

[Chomsky]

I'd guess most corporation had tried that already. It did not work.

You have data to that effect?

 

[Slavister]

You have data to that effect?

What data?

We've been at it for 18 months with corporations doing all they can and all they are willing to do - everyone from beginning of pandemic, or at least from April 2020, has known they should mask, social distance, etc. Every business I visit or I hear of has implemented such things already over course of pandemic - even in my red area.

And yet, here we are with hopitals getting overwhelmed again ....

 

[Chomsky]

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



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.



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.


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.



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.




Maybe 50%? Maybe... ?



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.



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.

I like WaPo as a source too, so it's claim of 56% might be in the ballpark.

But yeah, we might run in different circles. I spent my (1st!) career in corporate life. And even twenty years ago, drug testing was pretty much the norm among major large corps. Besides have been a permanent employee of several large American-based multinational corps, I spent much of my first career as an outside consultant/contractor. In virtually every instance there was pre-employment drug testing, and often it included outside consultants & contractors. And my experience here was with over a dozen corps.

As to government, my local governments all require drug-testing state/county/city.

Did you work for small or family businesses? If so, that may explain our different experiences.

Check-out the link below, in relation to large (Fortune 500) corps. It seems to be in concert with the WaPo article (62%):

At present, approximately 90% of Fortune 500 companies run drug tests on their employees, and 62% of all employers across the country have instated mandatory drug testing programs.

Fortune 500 Companies that Drug Test

Companies understand that implementing drug testing program significantly results in financial savings and makes workplace more productive and safer for others. Carrying out drug and alcohol tests throughout the nation has enabled Drug Testing Network to provide customized drug, alcohol and...

www.drugtestpanels.com

 

[Chomsky]

What data?

We've been at it for 18 months with corporations doing all they can and all they are willing to do - everyone from beginning of pandemic, or at least from April 2020, has known they should mask, social distance, etc. Every business I visit or I hear of has implemented such things already over course of pandemic - even in my red area.

And yet, here we are with hopitals getting overwhelmed again ....

Data showing "most" corps have tried vaccine mandates (with option).

 

[Slavister]

Data showing "most" corps have tried vaccine mandates (with option).

I was responding to your idea of "allowing an employment 'mask-test-distance' option, firstly". So I said that was already tried and did not work.