Coronavirus

[bkp_duke]

Sorry: Just the relevant start of the article.
View attachment 710358

As I suspected. But we are talking about 2 different things. This is a mandate for healthcare workers, and as I've said I'm VERY much in favor of that. That should just be a job requirement. But a blanket mandate for everyone? Nope.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

As I suspected. But we are talking about 2 different things. This is a mandate for healthcare workers, and as I've said I'm VERY much in favor of that. That should just be a job requirement. But a blanket mandate for everyone? Nope.

Sure, I don't think it should be required to be vaccinated for anyone.

I think as long as you're ok with staying home and living your life it's fine to not get vaccinated. Just required for employment, teaching, school, healthcare, federal jobs, state jobs in states which decide to enforce that, etc. Mandates in all these places are all good (only once the FDA full approval for younger ages comes through of course). Private companies can of course require it of their customers as well.

But yeah, no one should have to be vaccinated. But if you want to work (other than being self-employed - don't have to get vaccinated in that case), etc., mandates! No one's forcing anyone though.

I'm also ok with sincere religious exemptions. But they need to be pretty detailed and well supported by evidence (a detailed statement of beliefs explaining the religious basis for the exemption). And of course real health exemptions (need systems for both of these exceptions to validate them all, can't just be a doctor's note).

Of course there will be people who really are committed to the cause who fabricate the religious beliefs, but it's such a small number it doesn't even matter.

Summary: I'm 100% fine with extremely broad mandates in all areas of life, and I also don't think anyone should be forced to be vaccinated. The mandates will take care of the actual compliance, for the most part.

 

[Norbert]

The odds of getting the vaccinated population killed are very low. This is a cherry-picked argument. They are putting mostly the unvaccinated population at risk, no one else.

So because I am vaccinated myself, I should be fine with stupid people killing each other?

(Just to keep dramatizing it a bit. But current death rate is about as high as the 2020 average, maybe higher.)

 

[JRP3]

And what happened to "my body, my choice"? Someone with another living entity inside them gets to choose what they do with their body, at potentially the expense of the life inside them, but someone else doesn't have the right to decline a vaccine? That right there is clear cut hypocrisy.

No it's not, pregnant women are not a threat to the rest of society by their choices.

 

[bkp_duke]

So because I am vaccinated myself, I should be fine with stupid people killing each other?

(Just to keep dramatizing it a bit. But current death rate is about as high as the 2020 average, maybe higher.)

Yes, you are dramatizing it, but if you FORCE this healthcare decision on people, then where do you draw the line?

It's a short argument to mandating everyone go to the gym and lose weight . . . . for the public good.

 

[madodel]

Show me said law. As a physician, I'm not aware of these laws.

There are CONDITIONAL laws, which basically are the school vaccination laws (i.e. you cannot attend a public school without certain vaccines), but they are far from absolute. California has some of the strictest vaccination laws regarding schools, and even they are not absolute. For example, if you are so hard core anti-vax, then you can home school your children and 100% of those vaccines cannot be forced upon you.

EDIT - for the record, the CDC has a tidy little page on vaccination laws, and you will note that they are actually quite narrow:

CDC - Vaccination Laws - Publications by Topic - Public Health Law

CDC works with public health agencies to improve and sustain immunization coverage and to monitor the safety of vaccines. One tool used is vaccination law.

www.cdc.gov

Aside from strict laws governing healthcare workers and PUBLICLY-funded schools, there are not blanket laws regarding vaccination in this country as you are implying.

The Surprisingly Strong Supreme Court Precedent Supporting Vaccine Mandates In 1905, the high court made a fateful ruling with eerie parallels to today: One person’s liberty can’t trump everyone else’s.

 

[bkp_duke]

The Surprisingly Strong Supreme Court Precedent Supporting Vaccine Mandates In 1905, the high court made a fateful ruling with eerie parallels to today: One person’s liberty can’t trump everyone else’s.

Did you actually read what you posted? That wasn't the "absolute" ruling that the title makes it out to be. It was in regards to smallpox, and smallpox ALONE. Smallpox has a 30% CFR/IFR. Not the ~1% we are dealing with today.

That is an apples to potatoes comparison, and like everything, the devil is in the details.

 

[bkp_duke]

No it's not, pregnant women are not a threat to the rest of society by their choices.

Some of them are just a threat to the healthy, unborn lives that they are carrying.

 

[Norbert]

Yes, you are dramatizing it, but if you FORCE this healthcare decision on people, then where do you draw the line?

It's a short argument to mandating everyone go to the gym and lose weight . . . . for the public good.

No, regarding "force" I'm pretty much with Alan's post. But I have a real difficulty with those who are telling others not to get vaccinated and instead take some snake oil or horse de-wormer. Especially if they appear to be driven by agitation of a more political nature.

 

[bkp_duke]

No, regarding "force" I'm pretty much with Alan's post. But I have a real difficulty with those who are telling others not to get vaccinated and instead take some snake oil or horse de-wormer. Especially if they appear to be driven by agitation of a more political nature.

Oh, now THAT is a different subject. Those that push these alternative "therapies" should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

 

[madodel]

Did you actually read what you posted? That wasn't the "absolute" ruling that the title makes it out to be. It was in regards to smallpox, and smallpox ALONE. Smallpox has a 30% CFR/IFR. Not the ~1% we are dealing with today.

That is an apples to potatoes comparison, and like everything, the devil is in the details.

I'm not here demanding that vaccines be mandated, yet, but responding to your comment that mandating vaccines is "full-bore communism". It's about public health and protecting society, even the truly stupid fringes of society.

 

[bkp_duke]

I'm not here demanding that vaccines be mandated, yet, but responding to your comment that mandating vaccines is "full-bore communism". It's about public health and protecting society, even the truly stupid fringes of society.

You can't protect those that don't want to be protected. We have good vaccines for people that want them. They are highly effective. I support their choice to take them, and advocate for them to be vaccinated.

I do not support forcing them upon individuals that don't want them. I am not joking when I say that it would be a powderkeg.

 

[madodel]

You can't protect those that don't want to be protected. We have good vaccines for people that want them. They are highly effective. I support their choice to take them, and advocate for them to be vaccinated.

I do not support forcing them upon individuals that don't want them. I am not joking when I say that it would be a powderkeg.

That's your opinion, but you implied I didn't know what I was talking about. In this rare instance I actually do. A vaccine mandate is legal and unless most of the right wing justices decide to not follow existing precedent and law, it will be legal. Your "slippery slope" argument does nothing to change that, and in my opinion is not based in reality. As to government mandating healthcare choices, that is owned by the Republicans right now.

In Pennsylvania, despite having a large majority of Democrats, we have a Republican controlled legislature thanks to the huge swaths of rural people who make gerrymandering easy, which is now considering bills to ban any local government or business from requiring vaccination for employees or customers. They also have a bill to specifically ban healthcare institutions from requiring employees to get vaccinated. Our public universities can't require vaccination, like private ones now do because of threats from the Republicans to cut their funding. It's not Communists we have to be afraid of today, but fascists.

 

[winfield100]

The odds of getting the vaccinated population killed are very low. This is a cherry-picked argument. They are putting mostly the unvaccinated population at risk, no one else.

incorrect.

where did the delta variant most likely mutate, and all the other variants?
and the next variants that will bypass the vaccinations

which little human “bio-reactors”?
which was more likely?
vaccinated or unvaccinated
unvaccinated put everyone at risk.

i seem to recall quarantines from my youth, though my brother still got polio

 

[msm859]

Show me said law. As a physician, I'm not aware of these laws.

There are CONDITIONAL laws, which basically are the school vaccination laws (i.e. you cannot attend a public school without certain vaccines), but they are far from absolute. California has some of the strictest vaccination laws regarding schools, and even they are not absolute. For example, if you are so hard core anti-vax, then you can home school your children and 100% of those vaccines cannot be forced upon you.

EDIT - for the record, the CDC has a tidy little page on vaccination laws, and you will note that they are actually quite narrow:

CDC - Vaccination Laws - Publications by Topic - Public Health Law

CDC works with public health agencies to improve and sustain immunization coverage and to monitor the safety of vaccines. One tool used is vaccination law.

www.cdc.gov

Aside from strict laws governing healthcare workers and PUBLICLY-funded schools, there are not blanket laws regarding vaccination in this country as you are implying.

George Washington "forced" his troops to get the smallpox vaccine in 1777.

 

[msm859]

"Pro-choice" by definition is putting "people's" lives at risk. Conveniently for those that stress that argument, the people killed by their "choice" just don't have a voice of their own.

And you are dramatizing this. If you are vaccinated, your risk of death from COVID-19 is very small. Your risk of hospitalization is also very small. It's the unvaccinated that are putting their lives at risk by doing so, with little risk to the vaccinated population. AGAIN - NOTHING is absolute, so the vaccinated population has to understand that while effective, the vaccine is not like "living in a bubble". If those people want that level of absolute protection, then they should live in a bubble until the pandemic is over.

What "people" lives are at risk from an abortion? Only the pregnant woman who is choosing the procedure. The anti-abortion laws in this country ie Texas are versions of Sharia Law - laws based on religious belief. In Israel they pay for their citizens to have an abortion. In the Jewish faith life doesn't begin until the "first breath". If a woman has an abortion she is not putting any other persons live at risk.

True if you are fully vaccinated you are pretty safe. My wife and I are fully vaccinated in our 60's. She has an autoimmune disease. Got Covid 1 week ago. Lost smell and taste and has been sick. She is getting better - didn't have to go to the hospital. What do you think is the statistic that she got Covid from an unvaccinated person? Again with statistics I heard 96% of medical doctors are vaccinated. @90% + of Covid patients in hospitals are unvaccinated. That hospitals are so busy that critical "elective" surgery is being delayed. Some people will die because of this. Scientist are saying that Covid can continue to mutate with all the unvaccinated. What are the odds that it mutates into something even worse? Worse then the Delta strain. How much of a possibility does it have to be before we mandate all get vaccinated to prevent that? 1 in 10, 1 in 100, 1 in 1000? Instead of responsible people living in a bubble to protect themselves. How about the irresponsible live in the bubble and allow the others to enjoy the fruits of living in a society where we have a social compact that includes sometimes doing what is best for society. Living in a civilized society means a lot of things are not allowed. Drinking and driving, street racing.......A pandemic should be dealt with by science not personal feelings.

 

[Dave EV]

And what happened to "my body, my choice"? Someone with another living entity inside them gets to choose what they do with their body, at potentially the expense of the life inside them, but someone else doesn't have the right to decline a vaccine? That right there is clear cut hypocrisy.

Making the false claim that "my body, my choice" is a valid argument for both those who are pro-choice and anti-vaccine is a red herring and flat out wrong. The two topics have nothing to do with each other. It's completely disingenuous for you to try to claim that the same argument works for both. You are either purposely stirring the turd here, or you are so blinded by dogma that you can't see the difference. And don't bother trying to claim hypocrisy again, here either.

If someone wants to remain unvaccinated and isolate themselves in a way that they basically eliminate the risk of getting and spreading COVID (you know, regular PCR testing, social distancing, wearing masks, etc) - you might have an argument. But if you want to act normal - like every single anti-vaxxer I've met?

Forget it. You are only prolonging the proliferation of COVID and putting everyone else at risk and many at significant risk - especially those who are elderly, immunocompromised and more. Not to mention all the full hospitals which are resulting in a decreased standard of care and rationing of services.

 

[wdolson]

1 in 500 Americans has died from covid.

1 in ~327 Mississippians (right?) has died from covid.

And that's just what has been reported. A lot of March-May 2020 death counts went underreported.

The reported death rate from COVID in the US is about 0.15% of the entire population and the 1918 flu pandemic killed about 0.64% of the population. COVID is probably a far more deadly disease than the 1918 flu, but medicine has advanced dramatically since 1918 and we are much better at keeping people alive long enough for their bodies to fight off the infection.

But even if the COVID death toll is under reported, it's killing less than 1/3 what the 1918 flu killed. We are at a tipping point in some states where we could see a spike in deaths from easily treatable conditions because there is no hospital space due to all the COVID patients. From whatever causes, we should count all the excess deaths since March 2020 as COVID related deaths even if someone died from a moderate heart attack or a appendicitis. If they should have lived because they got treated in the before times, their deaths are COVID related even if they didn't have it.

Additionally what killed most people from the 1918 flu were secondary infections that we're good at treating now. I heard a This American Life or something like it program on NPR that researchers who dug up bodies from the 1918 flu and sequenced the virus compared it to flu viruses circulating since. The same strain that killed so many in 1918 was still detectable in samples taken in the 50s.

Show me said law. As a physician, I'm not aware of these laws.

There are CONDITIONAL laws, which basically are the school vaccination laws (i.e. you cannot attend a public school without certain vaccines), but they are far from absolute. California has some of the strictest vaccination laws regarding schools, and even they are not absolute. For example, if you are so hard core anti-vax, then you can home school your children and 100% of those vaccines cannot be forced upon you.

EDIT - for the record, the CDC has a tidy little page on vaccination laws, and you will note that they are actually quite narrow:

CDC - Vaccination Laws - Publications by Topic - Public Health Law

CDC works with public health agencies to improve and sustain immunization coverage and to monitor the safety of vaccines. One tool used is vaccination law.

www.cdc.gov

Aside from strict laws governing healthcare workers and PUBLICLY-funded schools, there are not blanket laws regarding vaccination in this country as you are implying.

There is precedent to mandate a vaccine to be able to do something. I learned a few days ago that Mississippi has the strictest childhood vaccination law for children to be admitted to school. I think all states have some kind of childhood vaccine requirement to be able to attend school, even if there are exceptions. There are also mandates given to military members and I believe some other professions require vaccines (airline crew traveling internationally I believe).

If the government can't mandate vaccinations directly they can limit what you can do until you're vaccinated. The history of disease control, even in the US is full of instances where the government forced people to do things they didn't want to do in the name of preserving public health.

 

[jerry33]

Some of them are just a threat to the healthy, unborn lives that they are carrying.

While correct, this problem is mostly solved by real sex education and freely available birth control.

 

[bkp_duke]

Making the false claim that "my body, my choice" is a valid argument for both those who are pro-choice and anti-vaccine is a red herring and flat out wrong. The two topics have nothing to do with each other. It's completely disingenuous for you to try to claim that the same argument works for both. You are either purposely stirring the turd here, or you are so blinded by dogma that you can't see the difference. And don't bother trying to claim hypocrisy again, here either.

If someone wants to remain unvaccinated and isolate themselves in a way that they basically eliminate the risk of getting and spreading COVID (you know, regular PCR testing, social distancing, wearing masks, etc) - you might have an argument. But if you want to act normal - like every single anti-vaxxer I've met?

Forget it. You are only prolonging the proliferation of COVID and putting everyone else at risk and many at significant risk - especially those who are elderly, immunocompromised and more. Not to mention all the full hospitals which are resulting in a decreased standard of care and rationing of services.

Go read my posts you numb nuts. I'm a physician, board-certified pediatrician, and have a Ph.D. in molecular biology and have LITERALLY built viruses (for lab purposes like gene overexpression in mice). I know the biology in and out, and I've had to work with parents that were "vaccine hesitant".

The label of anti-vaxxer won't stick to me, I've repeatedly said in this thread that I'm PRO-vaccine, but I will NOT force it upon anyone. I've practiced and seen the attempts of forced vaccination, and they don't go over well. EVER. FORCED vaccination is not the answer, and I'll never support it.