Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
IIRC from the other thread, you're basing this strictly on the mortality rates of kids vs. adults, though. And further, explicitly choosing not to evaluate infirmity or suffering in the calculus.
But let's continue this line of thinking anyway. Who is determining if it is unsafe or not?
Double blind studies? If you really are a stats guy, it should be pretty easy to determine what is safer - vaccinated vs. unvaccinated.
Well like what 180 million or so shots later and hospitals are full of primarily the minority of people who haven’t taken it.
Future occurrences of what, specifically? Without an ongoing pandemic with similar contagion, infirmity, and mortality ... no precedent will apply. If some kind of overreach is attempted during a future pandemic of the sniffles, or in a time where there is no pandemic at all, the populace and the courts will be able to mount meaningful pushback.
If we have another pandemic that has a readily available vaccine, hopefully we mandate it even sooner
No. Freedom is a right. They don't get to tell you that you can vote this election, but not the next. Nice try in twisting it so it makes it ok THIS TIME.
I'm opposing the idea that we should base any decisions about easing restrictions on whether kids under 12 are vax eligible.
I'm not going to engage at length ... but I don't agree that the raw concept of "freedom" is a human right. In the sense that absolute freedom is curtailed and constrained by any system of laws.
As long as you're willing to show up and get whatever shot they tell you to get next time.
Feel free to make a counter-argument -- a mere declaration is not particularly compelling.
Ever heard of the saying having your cake and eating it too? That's what you're trying to do. You can't say it's ok THIS TIME but maybe it won't be NEXT TIME. It's either wrong or right for the government to force you to take a vaccine. You pick.
I don't have a specific example in mind but this will be used for something other than it's intended if the courts support it. I can almost guarantee it. The best example I can think of is the Patriot Act. This is what I have in the back of my head when hearing the government is telling you we need this and this is how we are going to make you do it.
Nope -- I reject your ethical framework out of hand. You've presented a false dilemma and excluded that I can also choose to eat some portion of the cake, and then reserve a portion of the cake for later. There's an entire spectrum between the "right" and "wrong" you've presented, and I'm not bound to choose one or the other of the extreme endpoints.
I don't understand this argument? What's the difference if Trump does this or Biden does this? You either agree the vaccine is a good thing, or you don't want to get jabbed.
They aren't forced. They will instead face regular testing, have to mask, can't travel.
"The American way" is what we make it as a collective. The vision for the nation that I would support and uphold differs specifically on the bolded point.
This is like saying that we don't force people not to commit crimes -- they can always just opt for jail instead.
You don't want to get the vax then you get tested regularly to return to the office. That doesn't seem like jail.
I believe the employer decides which route they take not the individual employee. At least that is what I was just told by legal council.
Trump ordered the vaccine. WTF are you talking about? He literally waived liability for the pharma companies and made an executive order for them to make these vaccines. We had politicians at that time last year saying "If Trump says I should take the vaccine, then I won't take it" and now those same people are mandating it on everyone.
It's not jail, but the form of the argument is the same. "I'm not forcing you to do X, I'm just making it super-inconvenient for you not to X because I really want you to do X." That's still coercion
Interesting. My work sent out an email saying they are determining next steps.
These measures aren't what I would call super inconvenient. We can disagree there.
what's wrong with coercion? We are coerced to do all sorts of things. why do you think I'm wearing pants right now?
Coercion is fine in some situations. For example, we coerce people not to go around punching other people in the face -- do that, and an agent of the state will show up to take you into custody. And that's good, because punching people in the face violates their rights and the government exists for the express purpose of defending my rights against encroachment by others.
