Vaccine Mandates

[avromie7]

Chaim is tired from the wheel. 
1 - This is a public health issue
2 - Vaccinations save lives
3 - The more people that are vaccinated the more lives will be saved
4 - Mandates get more people vaccinated
5 - Mandates result in lives being saved

Now we can go in circles all you want but those facts will not change.

A) Why does this not apply to obesity?
B) Putting a gun to peoples head would get more people vaccinated.

[CountValentine]

A) Why does this not apply to obesity?
B) Putting a gun to peoples head would get more people vaccinated.

Are you disputing any of the facts I laid out?

[avromie7]

Are you disputing any of the facts I laid out?

No, but weight loss mandates would save even more lives and forced vaccination at gun point would result in a 100% vaccination rate.

[CountValentine]

No, but weight loss mandates would save even more lives and forced vaccination at gun point would result in a 100% vaccination rate.

Appreciate the direct answer.
Now here is the going in circle part. Someone being obese does not put others health at risk. Someone not being vaccinated puts others at risk. Your second point I will take as sarcasm.

[avromie7]

Appreciate the direct answer.
Now here is the going in circle part. Someone being obese does not put others health at risk. Someone not being vaccinated puts others at risk. Your second point I will take as sarcasm.

They use up hospital beds. IIRC that was used as an excuse for vaccine mandates, as well as some saying unvaxxed should be denied care because they take away resources.

My point about holding people at gun point is that's what a vaccine mandate is trying to do, if you twist someones arm behind their back they will be forced to oblige. While some people can afford to lose their jobs, others are left to choose between getting vaccinated and feeding their family or being homeless. I think such forceful measures are akin to holding people at gun point. It really makes me sick to hear such forced vaccinations touted as "effective", to that I say why stop there? Gun point is more effective.

[CountValentine]

They use up hospital beds. IIRC that was used as an excuse for vaccine mandates, as well as some saying unvaxxed should be denied care because they take away resources.

My point about holding people at gun point is that's what a vaccine mandate is trying to do, if you twist someones arm behind their back they will be forced to oblige. While some people can afford to lose their jobs, others are left to choose between getting vaccinated and feeding their family or being homeless. I think such forceful measures are akin to holding people at gun point. It really makes me sick to hear such forced vaccinations touted as "effective", to that I say why stop there? Gun point is more effective.

If you can't see the difference between a vaccine mandate and holding a gun to someone's head then this discussion is pointless.

At least we agree the vaccine mandate is saving lives.

[avromie7]

If you can't see the difference between a vaccine mandate and holding a gun to someone's head then this discussion is pointless.

At least we agree the vaccine mandate is saving lives.

Did you completely miss the rest of my post? They're both methods of arm twisting, both of them leave you with no choice.

[CountValentine]

Did you completely miss the rest of my post? They're both methods of arm twisting, both of them leave you with no choice.

Do you know what you are actually saying?
When you hold a gun to someone's head what happens when they refuse?

[avromie7]

Do you know what you are actually saying?
When you hold a gun to someone's head what happens when they refuse?

What happens when you take away someones livelihood? They and their family end up on the streets without food. That's a pretty aggressive punishment.

[CountValentine]

What happens when you take away someones livelihood? They and their family end up on the streets without food. That's a pretty aggressive punishment.

Even if that was the case it still isn't the same result when you put a guns to someone's head. You can make your point without the extreme exaggerations.

What is your view on requiring UPS drivers to wear seatbelts? If they refuse they lose their job and as you put it "They and their family end up on the streets without food."

[alexk.]

Chaim is tired from the wheel. 
1 - This is a public health issue
2 - Vaccinations save lives
3 - The more people that are vaccinated the more lives will be saved
4 - Mandates get more people vaccinated
5 - Mandates result in lives being saved

Now we can go in circles all you want but those facts will not change.

According to the CDC Website, deaths from Excessive Alcohol Use in US is responsible for 95K deaths a year. That is 261 deaths a day. Does that qualify as a public health issue?

1 - Excessive Alcoholism is a public health issue.
2 - One person's drinking Alcohol can put others at risk. 
3 -  Ban all Alcohol.

Meanwhile, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics with regards to Covid:

7 States reported ZERO child deaths.
From the 45 states, NYC, PR and GU reporting - 0.00% - 0.03% of all child Covid-19 cases resulted in deaths.

My kid is at a greater risk from people who drink alcohol than Covid-19. It is time to get rid of all alcohol. Across the board. Those who drink Alcohol put my non-alcohol drinking kids at risk.

Fact: Banning Alcohol will save lives. If you disagree, you have to prove that banning alcohol will not save lives. All other arguments are moot. They do not directly address the fact.

[CountValentine]

According to the CDC Website, deaths from Excessive Alcohol Use in US is responsible for 95K deaths a year. That is 261 deaths a day. Does that qualify as a public health issue?

1 - Excessive Alcoholism is a public health issue.
2 - One person's drinking Alcohol can put others at risk. 
3 -  Ban all Alcohol.

Meanwhile, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics with regards to Covid:

7 States reported ZERO child deaths.
From the 45 states, NYC, PR and GU reporting - 0.00% - 0.03% of all child Covid-19 cases resulted in deaths.

My kid is at a greater risk from people who drink alcohol than Covid-19. It is time to get rid of all alcohol. Across the board. Those who drink Alcohol put my non-alcohol drinking kids at risk.

Fact: Banning Alcohol will save lives. If you disagree, you have to prove that banning alcohol will not save lives. All other arguments are moot. They do not directly address the fact.

If you want to ban alcohol go for it and start a thread for it. That doesn't change the facts I laid out.

Round to the round house, he can't corner you there. 

[avromie7]

Even if that was the case it still isn't the same result when you put a guns to someone's head. You can make your point without the extreme exaggerations.

What is your view on requiring UPS drivers to wear seatbelts? If they refuse they lose their job and as you put it "They and their family end up on the streets without food."

Since you're pro-mandate, would you be in favor of all jobs requiring vaccination?

[CountValentine]

Since you're pro-mandate, would you be in favor of all jobs requiring vaccination?

Is this a one-way street? You keep asking questions but skip some of mine? 

[avromie7]

Is this a one-way street? You keep asking questions but skip some of mine? 

I'm trying to make a point here, can you answer the question?

[CountValentine]

I'm trying to make a point here, can you answer the question?

We are both trying to make points. My point is employers can require you to do some things. That is why I asked the question you avoided:

What is your view on requiring UPS drivers to wear seatbelts? If they refuse they lose their job and as you put it "They and their family end up on the streets without food."

[aygart]

We will not agree and the best solution is to let SCOTUS decide.

Does this mean that you are for arbitrarily placing the burden on random industries and disregarding the burden that places on those industries?

[CountValentine]

Does this mean that you are for arbitrarily placing the burden on random industries and disregarding the burden that places on those industries?

What I am saying is SCOTUS should decide if the government mandates are legal.

[aygart]

What I am saying is SCOTUS should decide if the government mandates are legal.

The constitutional issue is very much a side point especially considering the expense involved in bringing it to SCOTUS and that by the time there is a ruling it can very easily be too late for many establishments. The bigger question is if such arbitrary and random burdens are sound policy.

[CountValentine]

The bigger question is if such arbitrary and random burdens are sound policy.

Don't agree with your characterization but you will get no agreement on the policy.