Vaccine Mandates

[Kobe Bryant]

FL fighting back.

[TimT]

https://twitter.com/wbz/status/1437797595884175362

[Kobe Bryant]

A federal judge temporarily blocked the state of New York on Tuesday from forcing medical workers to be vaccinated after a group of health care workers sued, saying their Constitutional rights were violated because the state’s mandate disallowed religious exemptions.

Judge David Hurd in Utica issued the order after 17 health professionals, including doctors and nurses, claimed in a lawsuit Monday that their rights were violated with a vaccine mandate that disallowed the exemptions.

The judge gave New York state until Sept. 22 to respond to the lawsuit in federal court in Utica. If the state opposes the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary court order blocking the vaccine mandate, a Sept. 28 oral hearing will occur.

[CountValentine]

#DeathDeSantis fighting back.

FT

[Kobe Bryant]

[CountValentine]

If you can't keep your customers safe then you shouldn't be in business.

[alexk.]

Maybe we should put all fast food restaurants out of business. Customers will be a lot safer without that calorie intake.

Or maybe we should require the customers to show their latest physical exam with their BMI before ordering a 1500 calorie burger.

[S209]

Maybe we should put all fast food restaurants out of business. Customers will be a lot safer without that calorie intake.

Or maybe we should require the customers to show their latest physical exam with their BMI before ordering a 1500 calorie burger.

If obesity were contagious, it would be similar. Since it’s not, you’re creating a straw man again.

[alexk.]

The concern was for the safety of the customers. That is what it always has been about. However…

If the customers  are vaccinated, then they are protected.

If they aren’t vaccinated, and haven’t been living under a rock, they knew the risk of going into the public and what their chances of getting sick were. Yet they made that decision, much like the person getting the 1500 calorie burger. Actually, they probably know more about the risk of COVID than the risk of the consumption of the burger at this point.

So who are we protecting? The unvaccinated who made a conscious decision to go out and have dinner? Who is the store owner required to protect here? To the point that they should be out of business?

Furthermore, I can assure you that most restaurants today require their staff to wear masks. So what is the great risk?

Let the restaurants state what percentage of their staff is vaccinated and you can make an informed decision of if you want to patronize that establishment. That is democracy. Just like if they had a health code violation, you can still eat there if you want, so too you should have the choice to eat there if someone is not vaccinated. If people don’t feel comfortable then they won’t go there.

This is promoting a nanny state and obviously a lot of people don’t have a problem with that. Of course, until they come after your livelihood…

[S209]

What I see: A lot of words defending an indefensible straw man argument.

You want to debate the merits of a mandate? We can. But don’t compare it to something that is completely incomparable, or you already lost.

[alexk.]

What is typical of these forums is that when you try to make a point with an extreme example, they will attack the minor details, and ignore the main point.

We have to use a lot of words for those who can’t read between the lines.

Yes, this is the vaccine mandate thread. That is the debate here.

An opinion was made that a business that doesn’t require its employees to vaccinate is endangering their customers health to the point of deserving to be put out of business. Now remember, the customer is the one who made the choice to go to the establishment. They want to remove that choice from the customer. Even though the customer may be vaccinated and are supposedly protected.

 My argument, is that there are many potential  dangers to a customer of which the government does not mandate the business to control a potential health hazard to the point of closure.

If the vaccine works, it is not about being contagious. The vaccinated are protected. So clearly they are not the risk we are looking to protect.

So then it’s the unvaccinated.

But they already knew the risk when they stepped foot into the restaurant. So we are protecting someone who knew the risk, and made a conscious decision that they would do it anyway.

So we want to take away his right to make that decision by eliminating the restaurant. Wouldn’t people avoid the restaurant if they felt that they were putting themselves at risk? In steps the government and tells you that they will decide for you what risks you may take.

How is that different than the guy who made the decision to buy the burger? He knows it’s not good for him, but made the decision to buy it anyway.  Why aren’t we removing their right to buy as well?

Unless, of course,  you don’t have faith in the vaccine to protect. So then what does the mandate do? And why does this guy deserve to lose his business over it?

It may be an extreme example, and may not be apples to apples, but the point remains.

If you are going to defend the position, explain why the business deserves to go out of business. Don’t throw shade on the example. 

[S209]

More words? Keep in mind, I never said I’m pro mandate.

[yesitsme]

I agree and I also believe that it's wrong to fine for not wearing a seat belt especially if assisted suicide is legal

[alexk.]

More words? Keep in mind, I never said I’m pro mandate.

Deflection, deflection, deflection...

I think your positions are pretty evident from your posts, but maybe you should enlighten us. You did say that we can debate the merit of a mandate. Sounded like you disagree with my position.

So you took the time to disagree with an analogy on a position that you agree with ( and didn't bother to mention that you agree with the position) just to say that you don't like the analogy.

Ok...

[S209]

I think your positions are pretty evident from your posts, but maybe you should enlighten us.

Fascinating. Care to highlight where you’ve seen my “evident” positions?

I think a government mandate is a terrible idea, mostly because at 95% efficacy you’re safe enough without mandating that others comply.

If a fetus is a separate human life, then when a woman chooses an abortion she *is* making a choice that also affects others (because the fetus has no say in the decision nor the wherewithal to protect themself).

If unvaccinated people pose no risk of spread to vaccinated people, then when an unvaccinated person chooses not to wear a mask they are *not* making a choice that also affects others (because the other person now has the option of vaccination themself).

It’s highly questionable if the government should be allowed to mandate laws purely for the benefit of the person keeping or breaking said law. Seatbelts are a good example of a law which very likely should not be a law. The government should arguably not be allowed to intervene into an action that has no externalities.

(The bolder assumptions are hypothetical and for the point of debate. I believe the answers to both are more nuanced, but I tend to agree that we are at a point nationally where mask mandates should be ended but am in favor of disallowing most abortions).

So you took the time to disagree with an analogy on a position that you agree with ( and didn't bother to mention that you agree with the position) just to say that you don't like the analogy.

Ok...

I took the time to point out an obvious straw man argument. My opinion is wholly irrelevant.

[Ergel]

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/313921
I don't know - I'm pro-vax but this seems extreme to me

[avromie7]

If obesity were contagious, it would be similar. Since it’s not, you’re creating a straw man again.

He did not make a straw man argument, you did. The discussion here has not been about unvaccinated people infecting vaccinated people, it's about unvaccinated taking up space in the hospital. His response is to take any example of someone who chooses something that puts them at risk, should we have a nanny state making sure everyone does everything the government decides is safest, or should people have freedom.

[S209]

He did not make a straw man argument, you did. The discussion here has not been about unvaccinated people infecting vaccinated people, it's about unvaccinated taking up space in the hospital.

-1

The discussion was whether it's wrong for the government to mandate vaccines (e.g. through penalizing businesses) which carry externalities (infecting others). Comparing it to a mandate where there are no externalities (e.g. personal weight mandates) is just plain wrong.

Where is the straw man you are accusing me of making?

[Yehuda57]

If you can't keep your customers safe then you shouldn't be in business.

This is the comment @alexk. was responding to.

[alexk.]

I stand corrected on your position. I don’t have the time to give a thorough search like that.

But it is about overreach. You are saying that the externalities are what makes them different cases.

I say that even if you want to say that, which I don’t agree, the externalities are not even a real factor.  There is no compelling argument that requires a mandate to vaccinate in order to protect the vaccinated from the unvaccinated. It is this exact backwards reasoning that have more people apprehensive to vaccinate. No matter how many times they say it, people can’t wrap their heads around the logic. That only fuels conspiracy theories.

Then take that reasoning and apply it to the point of putting private businesses out of business? It is an outrageous statement and should be called out for such. The fact that people think that way is scary enough.

Let’s not even discuss the fact that the USPS is exempt from the mandate. I guess it’s only viable businesses they are looking to destroy.

We will be sorry that we let it slide when they come after Milah or Shechitah under the guise of health or cruelty.