It's Time to Mandate Vaccines

[Big Blitz]

 

 

The New World Order kindly asks you to not critically think or at least ask questions.....just get the jab bro.   

[The Frankish Reich]

13 hours ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

Stop being an ass. I am not an anti-vaxxer and it wasn't an argument at all. It was a legitimate question to which I didn't know the answer. So, I asked. And now I know that you don't know the answer either. Maybe you should town down your arrogance and know a little bit more about the topic on which you choose to go on a crusade. 

If I mis-ascribed some of these thoughts to you, my apologies.

Honestly, I don't keep track of individual posters.

I'll just point out that we now have something of a divergence of arguments (if they deserve that lofty term) among the anti-mandate/anti-vaccine posters here:

- the ones who've backed off the conspiratorial thinking. We have almost a year of experience with the major COVID vaccines, and it's obvious that the fears of some kind of awful wave of side effects just ain't happening. So they say things like "but it won't completely eradicate COVID, so the herd immunity argument in favor of a mandate is a bad one." Those are the arguments I'm taking on here. 

- the ones who are now starting, little by little, to let their wacko conspiratorial ideas leak out. You know who you are. The use of the term "Big Pharma" is a giveaway. So too is some bizarro Digital Control thing that seems to be a repackaged Bill Gates Micro-Chipped My Ass thing.

[JaCrispy]

1 hour ago, Sundancer said:

 

So you're admitting you're wrong then, that's cool. 

 

 

Get vaccinated, get boosted. 

 

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight

 

What are you talking about? Overall death rates have spiked up. Something caused and continues to cause that. Something like, well, Covid. 

Where is it wrong? 
 

Or did you just respond without watching the full video?

 

 

Edited November 19, 2021 by JaCrispy

[The Frankish Reich]

16 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

The New World Order kindly asks you to not critically think or at least ask questions.....just get the jab bro.   

"The Brownstone Institute." Hmm, sounds reputable ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Tucker

 

Guy who "encountered Austrian economics" at something called Howard Payne University.

 

[billsfan1959]

2 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

If I mis-ascribed some of these thoughts to you, my apologies.

Honestly, I don't keep track of individual posters.

I'll just point out that we now have something of a divergence of arguments (if they deserve that lofty term) among the anti-mandate/anti-vaccine posters here:

- the ones who've backed off the conspiratorial thinking. We have almost a year of experience with the major COVID vaccines, and it's obvious that the fears of some kind of awful wave of side effects just ain't happening. So they say things like "but it won't completely eradicate COVID, so the herd immunity argument in favor of a mandate is a bad one." Those are the arguments I'm taking on here. 

- the ones who are now starting, little by little, to let their wacko conspiratorial ideas leak out. You know who you are. The use of the term "Big Pharma" is a giveaway. So too is some bizarro Digital Control thing that seems to be a repackaged Bill Gates Micro-Chipped My Ass thing.

 

This is not my area of expertise, so I typically refrain from givng my opinion. However, I think, in your argument, you leave no room for educated, rational, critical thinking adults who believe that if you are vulnerable, you should take the vaccine - and who also might be healthy and, in no way, remotely close to being in a vulnerable population, and question whether they need to take a vaccine. Or those who might disagree with you and think that "almost a year of experience with the major COVID vaccines" still isn't long enough study period - particularly when the advice on the vaccines and boosters keeps changing or, as you say, "evolving."

 

Not everyone who disagrees with a mandate is an anti-vaxxer or a conspiracy theorist.

[Sundancer]

37 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

The New World Order kindly asks you to not critically think or at least ask questions.....just get the jab bro.   

 

You mean like the Covid vaccine that we already see is working well and the very promising HIV (human trials), rabies, malaria, Zika, and other candidates including even cancers?

 

 

[The Frankish Reich]

9 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

This is not my area of expertise, so I typically refrain from givng my opinion. However, I think, in your argument, you leave no room for educated, rational, critical thinking adults who believe that if you are vulnerable, you should take the vaccine - and who also might be healthy and, in no way, remotely close to being in a vulnerable population, and question whether they need to take a vaccine. Or those who might disagree with you and think that "almost a year of experience with the major COVID vaccines" still isn't long enough study period - particularly when the advice on the vaccines and boosters keeps changing or, as you say, "evolving."

 

Not everyone who disagrees with a mandate is an anti-vaxxer or a conspiracy theorist.

I get that. And yes, there's been overreach by a lot of the pro-vaccine types. I think there's plenty of room for debate when it comes to younger children for example.

But ... I live in a state (Colorado) that is right now running AHEAD of mid-November 2020 in cases and hospitalizations. We're reaching the point again of having to move people to find ICU beds, etc., etc. And 83% of those hospitalized with COVID complications are unvaccinated. This is a state that is 63% fully vaccinated (a rate that is much higher among adults). The repercussions go way, way beyond the unvaccinated - they impact everyone. No, we are not going to shut the unvaccinated out and leave them to die. As annoyed as I get at unvaccinated adults sucking up our limited health resources, I'm not some kind of ogre - I don't want them shut off from health care. They made a bad choice, just like life-long smokers or the morbidly obese did. While vaccines may not eradicate COVID, they WILL allow us to avoid these kinds of episodes. We are moving toward more COVID restrictions because the unvaccinated are pushing us to another minor health crisis. That limits my freedoms, and it limits them because of stupid misinformation and collective bad decisionmaking of others.

That's why I started this thread. That's why it's point - it's time to mandate vaccines - is even more important now.

[JaCrispy]

1 hour ago, JaCrispy said:

Where is it wrong? 
 

Or did you just respond without watching the full video?

 

 

Well, I see you know how to vomit...now, are you capable an adult response with actual words, or is this not the forum for that?

 

Asking for a friend...😉

 

Edited November 19, 2021 by JaCrispy

[dpberr]

15 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

I’m sorry, but this has to be the stupidest anti-vaxx argument yet. And I’m seeing it from all of you. So what if it lasts 4, 5, 6 months? They seem perfectly capable of keeping pace with production. I imagine anti-Vaxxers take their ivermectin and vitamins every day, or every week,

or whatever. They probably pop viagra every time their wieners don’t spring into action. They probably take finasteride every day to keep those beautiful locks on their heads. The women amongst that group probably take contraceptives every day, get Botox injections every month or two. Why on earth would it matter that you need to get a booster a couple times a year?

The problem with your argument is that all of those drugs have consumer protections the Covid vaccination products do not.   

 

Covid shot?  You know how much you'll get?  Zero dollars.  

 

I have a big problem with the government mandating its citizens to take more and more of a product they cannot collect compensation for should they be injured from it.  If vaccine injury is allegedly rare as they say it is, there should be no issue in compensating such a small group of people. 

 

Mr. $500K/year salary Dr. Fauci can likely pay for his healthcare if he gets injured.  What about the single mom who's child has GBS or myocarditis, or that mother dies from a vaccine injury and leaves that child behind?  What if a person develops clots and can't work?  Don't they deserve to be compensated for that loss?  

 

[Orlando Buffalo]

1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said:

If I mis-ascribed some of these thoughts to you, my apologies.

Honestly, I don't keep track of individual posters.

I'll just point out that we now have something of a divergence of arguments (if they deserve that lofty term) among the anti-mandate/anti-vaccine posters here:

- the ones who've backed off the conspiratorial thinking. We have almost a year of experience with the major COVID vaccines, and it's obvious that the fears of some kind of awful wave of side effects just ain't happening. So they say things like "but it won't completely eradicate COVID, so the herd immunity argument in favor of a mandate is a bad one." Those are the arguments I'm taking on here. 

- the ones who are now starting, little by little, to let their wacko conspiratorial ideas leak out. You know who you are. The use of the term "Big Pharma" is a giveaway. So too is some bizarro Digital Control thing that seems to be a repackaged Bill Gates Micro-Chipped My Ass thing.

I find it sad that you think not trusting Big Pharma is a conspiracy theory. I think only a fool looks at a situation with 100s of billions of dollars up for grab and believes in the purity of intentions. I do want to go back to the mandate with you- you admitted that asking children to get mandated to protect the elderly is immoral, but did not tell me what age you would enact the mandate? I am seriously curious what age is proper?

[Big Blitz]

54 minutes ago, Sundancer said:

 

You mean like the Covid vaccine that we already see is working well and the very promising HIV (human trials), rabies, malaria, Zika, and other candidates including even cancers?

 

 

 

 

I can site lots of "promising" trials.   

 

Doesn't mean anything or have anything to do with protocols, mandates, and control.

 

  

 

But define "working well."  The vaccine that's still forcing NFL players to miss games and derail seasons.  Forcing (lol by choice) teams to enact protocols that upend normal life permanently. 

 

Please explain how this dynamic ever changes.  

 

Thanks.  

[Chef Jim]

3 hours ago, Sundancer said:

 

So you're admitting you're wrong then, that's cool. 

 

 

Get vaccinated, get boosted. 

 

 

 

Yes I was wrong but I hope you can understand my assumption as to your mandating vaccines seeing you're incessantly talking about the viability of vaccines in a thread about vaccine mandates no?  

 

Now on to your assumptions.  Why do you keep telling me to get vaccinated?  

1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said:

If I mis-ascribed some of these thoughts to you, my apologies.

Honestly, I don't keep track of individual posters.

I'll just point out that we now have something of a divergence of arguments (if they deserve that lofty term) among the anti-mandate/anti-vaccine posters here:

- the ones who've backed off the conspiratorial thinking. We have almost a year of experience with the major COVID vaccines, and it's obvious that the fears of some kind of awful wave of side effects just ain't happening. So they say things like "but it won't completely eradicate COVID, so the herd immunity argument in favor of a mandate is a bad one." Those are the arguments I'm taking on here. 

- the ones who are now starting, little by little, to let their wacko conspiratorial ideas leak out. You know who you are. The use of the term "Big Pharma" is a giveaway. So too is some bizarro Digital Control thing that seems to be a repackaged Bill Gates Micro-Chipped My Ass thing.

 

I don't give a flying flip about side effects.  I care about mandates.  You lump anti-mandates with anti-vaccine posters based on the highlighted above.  Please list the posters here that are anti-vaccine.  We'll wait......

[The Frankish Reich]

39 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

I find it sad that you think not trusting Big Pharma is a conspiracy theory. I think only a fool looks at a situation with 100s of billions of dollars up for grab and believes in the purity of intentions. I do want to go back to the mandate with you- you admitted that asking children to get mandated to protect the elderly is immoral, but did not tell me what age you would enact the mandate? I am seriously curious what age is proper?

I “admitted” nothing of the sort (that it is “immoral” to require kids to get the vaccine). I suggested that the full cost-benefit analysis for younger children is still an open question. 

8 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Yes I was wrong but I hope you can understand my assumption as to your mandating vaccines seeing you're incessantly talking about the viability of vaccines in a thread about vaccine mandates no?  

 

Now on to your assumptions.  Why do you keep telling me to get vaccinated?  

 

I don't give a flying flip about side effects.  I care about mandates.  You lump anti-mandates with anti-vaccine posters based on the highlighted above.  Please list the posters here that are anti-vaccine.  We'll wait......

I told you, I don’t keep track of individual posters. But clearly the poster who said that COVID vaccines “ruin” your immune system would fit within the description of an anti-COVID vaxxer, no? That’s not an argument about personal freedom;

it’s an argument (based on …. Nothing) that the vaccine actually does require more harm than good. 

[B-Man]

 

 

Biden administration suspends enforcement of business vaccine mandate to comply with court order (msn.com)

 

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration said it "suspended activities related to the implementation and enforcement" of the requirements "pending further developments in the litigation."

 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, considered one of the most conservative in the country, ordered OSHA last week to "take no steps to implement or enforce the Mandate until further court order."

 

The White House previously told businesses to proceed with the implementation of the requirements

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/smallbusiness/biden-administration-suspends-enforcement-of-business-vaccine-mandate-to-comply-with-court-order/ar-AAQSu5P?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531

 

 

 

[Sundancer]

1 hour ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

I can site lots of "promising" trials.   

 

Doesn't mean anything or have anything to do with protocols, mandates, and control.

 

  

 

But define "working well."  The vaccine that's still forcing NFL players to miss games and derail seasons.  Forcing (lol by choice) teams to enact protocols that upend normal life permanently. 

 

Please explain how this dynamic ever changes.  

 

Thanks.  

 

More data showing that vaccine effectiveness wanes for older and at risk, as we've been seeing for months now (*not for most people). Less so but a little waning for younger folk. Boosters jam protection through the roof and at least initially appear longer lasting for the data we have so far. 

 

 

 

14 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Biden administration suspends enforcement of business vaccine mandate to comply with court order (msn.com)

 

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration said it "suspended activities related to the implementation and enforcement" of the requirements "pending further developments in the litigation."

 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, considered one of the most conservative in the country, ordered OSHA last week to "take no steps to implement or enforce the Mandate until further court order."

 

The White House previously told businesses to proceed with the implementation of the requirements

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/smallbusiness/biden-administration-suspends-enforcement-of-business-vaccine-mandate-to-comply-with-court-order/ar-AAQSu5P?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531

 

 

 

 

Always nice when an administration respects the rule of law!

Edited November 19, 2021 by Sundancer

[Sundancer]

1 hour ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Yes I was wrong but I hope you can understand my assumption as to your mandating vaccines seeing you're incessantly talking about the viability of vaccines in a thread about vaccine mandates no?  

 

Thank you and no: I've mentioned several times how bad the school mandates are (just the worst) and that the mandates are terrible in general. 

 

1 hour ago, Chef Jim said:

Now on to your assumptions.  Why do you keep telling me to get vaccinated?  

 

I say that a lot in this thread. For you and anyone. Get vaccinated, get boosted.

 

[Chef Jim]

2 minutes ago, Sundancer said:

 

 

I say that a lot in this thread. For you and anyone. Get vaccinated, get boosted.

 

Thanks mom.  I’ll make my own decisions. Especially seeing no one has really convinced me why other than to protect others.  Well if others are vaccinated and boosted they have nothing to worry about right?  

[Orlando Buffalo]

1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said:

I “admitted” nothing of the sort (that it is “immoral” to require kids to get the vaccine). I suggested that the full cost-benefit analysis for younger children is still an open question. 

What is the open question in your mind? We know that children without serious pre existing conditions are not dying from it, or generally being hospitalized, we do not have a long term track record of RNA vaccines. You seem to  have a position you believe but are afraid to say it outright, what age is appropriate for the mandate? What exemptions? Also what would be moral about forcing children to get a vaccine to protect the elderly when the vaccine does not stop you from spreading the illness?

[The Frankish Reich]

1 minute ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

What is the open question in your mind? We know that children without serious pre existing conditions are not dying from it, or generally being hospitalized, we do not have a long term track record of RNA vaccines. You seem to  have a position you believe but are afraid to say it outright, what age is appropriate for the mandate? What exemptions? Also what would be moral about forcing children to get a vaccine to protect the elderly when the vaccine does not stop you from spreading the illness?

Ok. Here we go:

- mandates are appropriate for all adults. Period. 
- mandates are appropriate for older

children.  I think the studies were

typically first done on 12 and ups. And that’s a good line. 
- whether a mandate is needed for younger children is probably debatable. I see the science as warranting vaccines. But I will say that there is room for debate here, such that a mandate may not be necessary or appropriate for, say, 5 to 10 year olds. 

And by the way, the “vaccine does not stop you from spreading the infection” is just silly. No, it is not perfect. But greatly reduces the risk

of spread is still a great thing. 

[Big Blitz]

31 minutes ago, Sundancer said:

 

More data showing that vaccine effectiveness wanes for older and at risk, as we've been seeing for months now (*not for most people). Less so but a little waning for younger folk. Boosters jam protection through the roof and at least initially appear longer lasting for the data we have so far. 

 

 

 

Please explain to me how this dynamic ever changes.

 

I don't give a flip about the vaccine data because cases aren't going away, hospitalizations aren't going away, and people will die vaccinated or not.  

 

 

 

When does the dynamic of "positive test for Big Ben see you in 10 days" ever changes?

 

 

Edited November 19, 2021 by Big Blitz