Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Francoflier wrote:Good.
It's either that or turn them away from the hospitals. The former is the more ethical way to go about it while ensuring that their selfishness and lack of social solidarity doesn't weigh on society as a whole too much.
flyguy89 wrote:Francoflier wrote:Good.
It's either that or turn them away from the hospitals. The former is the more ethical way to go about it while ensuring that their selfishness and lack of social solidarity doesn't weigh on society as a whole too much.
Wow.
I tell you what, I don’t much subscribe to the whole Chinese lab-leak conspiracy nonsense but China couldn’t have engineered a better virus even if they had wanted to. Sure doesn’t take much for western liberal democracy to start unraveling.
flyguy89 wrote:Francoflier wrote:Good.
It's either that or turn them away from the hospitals. The former is the more ethical way to go about it while ensuring that their selfishness and lack of social solidarity doesn't weigh on society as a whole too much.
Wow.
I tell you what, I don’t much subscribe to the whole Chinese lab-leak conspiracy nonsense but China couldn’t have engineered a better virus even if they had wanted to. Sure doesn’t take much for western liberal democracy to start unraveling.
Aaron747 wrote:flyguy89 wrote:Francoflier wrote:Good.
It's either that or turn them away from the hospitals. The former is the more ethical way to go about it while ensuring that their selfishness and lack of social solidarity doesn't weigh on society as a whole too much.
Wow.
I tell you what, I don’t much subscribe to the whole Chinese lab-leak conspiracy nonsense but China couldn’t have engineered a better virus even if they had wanted to. Sure doesn’t take much for western liberal democracy to start unraveling.
This statement makes no sense - similar opinions have not caught like wildfire in reference to needing proof of Tb clearance or measles vaccination to enroll in university or elementary school. There is no 'wow' here - equating public health measures with rollback of individual liberties is tantamount to a child's reasoning on what freedom is/means.
Aaron747 wrote:The German government has come to the conclusion they have no choice but to restrict activities of the unvaccinated and possibly mandate compulsory jabs if parliament decides it's prudent.
Only those who have been vaccinated or recently recovered from Covid will be allowed in restaurants, cinemas, leisure facilities and many shops.
Vaccinations could be made mandatory by February, the chancellor added.
Germany's fourth wave of Covid is its most severe so far, with another 388 deaths recorded in the past 24 hours.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-59502180
This presents an interesting test case for other EU countries that have been struggling with high rates of vaccine hesitancy.
Vaccinations could be made mandatory by February, the chancellor added.
But I think I agree with some public health experts that mandated jabs have high potential to be very counterproductive as people will refuse and organize further against all public health measures.
Bundesverfassungsgericht wrote:Die angegriffenen Kontaktbeschränkungen waren als Maßnahmen zum Schutz von Leben und Gesundheit sowie zur Aufrechterhaltung eines funktionsfähigen Gesundheitssystems auch im verfassungsrechtlichen Sinne erforderlich.
The challenged contact restrictions were required as measures to protect life and health and to maintain a functioning health care system also in the constitutional sense.
ltbewr wrote:If you are not vaccinated in Germany, are you supposed to wear a badge
(along with a mask)
if have to go out for food or take a walk to keep up your health if not infected.
We know the history of that of 80+ years ago in that country.
flyguy89 wrote:Francoflier wrote:Good.
It's either that or turn them away from the hospitals. The former is the more ethical way to go about it while ensuring that their selfishness and lack of social solidarity doesn't weigh on society as a whole too much.
Wow.
I tell you what, I don’t much subscribe to the whole Chinese lab-leak conspiracy nonsense but China couldn’t have engineered a better virus even if they had wanted to. Sure doesn’t take much for western liberal democracy to start unraveling.
Aaron747 wrote:The German government has come to the conclusion they have no choice but to restrict activities of the unvaccinated and possibly mandate compulsory jabs if parliament decides it's prudent.
Only those who have been vaccinated or recently recovered from Covid will be allowed in restaurants, cinemas, leisure facilities and many shops.
Vaccinations could be made mandatory by February, the chancellor added.
Germany's fourth wave of Covid is its most severe so far, with another 388 deaths recorded in the past 24 hours.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-59502180
This presents an interesting test case for other EU countries that have been struggling with high rates of vaccine hesitancy. But I think I agree with some public health experts that mandated jabs have high potential to be very counterproductive as people will refuse and organize further against all public health measures.
cpd wrote:Aaron747 wrote:The German government has come to the conclusion they have no choice but to restrict activities of the unvaccinated and possibly mandate compulsory jabs if parliament decides it's prudent.
Only those who have been vaccinated or recently recovered from Covid will be allowed in restaurants, cinemas, leisure facilities and many shops.
Vaccinations could be made mandatory by February, the chancellor added.
Germany's fourth wave of Covid is its most severe so far, with another 388 deaths recorded in the past 24 hours.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-59502180
This presents an interesting test case for other EU countries that have been struggling with high rates of vaccine hesitancy. But I think I agree with some public health experts that mandated jabs have high potential to be very counterproductive as people will refuse and organize further against all public health measures.
Why is this so noteworthy?
This was standard procedure where I live. No double vaccination then you remain in lockdown. No parties, no moving outside your local government area, restrictions galore.
It’s a tough but effective way to encourage vaccination that was used effectively by our conservative right wing government.
CometII wrote:That is absolutely and totally NOT what the Founding Fathers, or any of the 18th and 19th Century Enlightment ever would have envisioned. This idea of "me me me" is a recent phenomenon. People in the early 20th century would not bat an eyelash at the government telling them to vote, or to get a vaccine, or to be conscripted.
Francoflier wrote:Good.
It's either that or turn them away from the hospitals.
flyguy89 wrote:Aaron747 wrote:flyguy89 wrote:Wow.
I tell you what, I don’t much subscribe to the whole Chinese lab-leak conspiracy nonsense but China couldn’t have engineered a better virus even if they had wanted to. Sure doesn’t take much for western liberal democracy to start unraveling.
This statement makes no sense - similar opinions have not caught like wildfire in reference to needing proof of Tb clearance or measles vaccination to enroll in university or elementary school. There is no 'wow' here - equating public health measures with rollback of individual liberties is tantamount to a child's reasoning on what freedom is/means.
I would think we could acknowledge that there’s a certain degree of difference between a campus requirement for TB vaccination to attend school and state-backed compulsory vaccination for all. The “wow” was in reference to the latter.
bpatus297 wrote:flyguy89 wrote:Aaron747 wrote:
This statement makes no sense - similar opinions have not caught like wildfire in reference to needing proof of Tb clearance or measles vaccination to enroll in university or elementary school. There is no 'wow' here - equating public health measures with rollback of individual liberties is tantamount to a child's reasoning on what freedom is/means.
I would think we could acknowledge that there’s a certain degree of difference between a campus requirement for TB vaccination to attend school and state-backed compulsory vaccination for all. The “wow” was in reference to the latter.
It varies state to state, but in all but three states there are nonmedical exemptions for religious or philosophical reasons. Per the CDC.
Aaron747 wrote:bpatus297 wrote:flyguy89 wrote:I would think we could acknowledge that there’s a certain degree of difference between a campus requirement for TB vaccination to attend school and state-backed compulsory vaccination for all. The “wow” was in reference to the latter.
It varies state to state, but in all but three states there are nonmedical exemptions for religious or philosophical reasons. Per the CDC.
Yes, that too. The emotional opposition is totally unfounded.
bpatus297 wrote:Aaron747 wrote:bpatus297 wrote:
It varies state to state, but in all but three states there are nonmedical exemptions for religious or philosophical reasons. Per the CDC.
Yes, that too. The emotional opposition is totally unfounded.
In your opinion.
Aaron747 wrote:bpatus297 wrote:Aaron747 wrote:
Yes, that too. The emotional opposition is totally unfounded.
In your opinion.
No, based on simple logic.
bpatus297 wrote:Aaron747 wrote:bpatus297 wrote:
In your opinion.
No, based on simple logic.
Nope, your opinion, not logic.
art wrote:Francoflier wrote:Good.
It's either that or turn them away from the hospitals.
I agree. In England countless people have suffered due to people with COVID-19 soaking up medical resources. People with serious medical conditions are forced to wait for treatment. People needing diagnosis for medical conditions are forced to wait for diagnosis. Vaccine hesitancy and refusal is responsible for a great deal of suffering and death in others and will be responsible for more in the future (due to delayed diagnosis and treatment of disease). If someone who has refused vaccination gets COVID-19, I do not think that person should be given access to scarce medical resources.
I also think that since unvaccinated people are more likely to infect others, it is a good move to restrict their access to places outside of their home.
Aaron747 wrote:bpatus297 wrote:Aaron747 wrote:
Yes, that too. The emotional opposition is totally unfounded.
In your opinion.
No, based on simple logic.
Aaron747 wrote:bpatus297 wrote:Aaron747 wrote:
No, based on simple logic.
Nope, your opinion, not logic.
Logic, def: a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/logic
It is reasonable and proper to establish that public health practitioners and experts know best how to protect medical system capacity and contain spread of disease. It is unreasonable and improper to assume that laymen, based on opinions relating to individual freedoms, know a better way. So again, simple logic. The argument that an individual's need to express liberty in whatever way they see fit - counter to expert advice, and potentially causing negative health effects for others and the community - is 'reasonable' is demonstrably untrue.
bpatus297 wrote:Aaron747 wrote:bpatus297 wrote:
In your opinion.
No, based on simple logic.
BTW, I am by no means anti-vax, I support the Rona vax. I think the Rona vaccines are mostly safe, but I still have some concerns about the long term effects. That is mostly from a new type of vaccine that is being rolled out in record time with out long term studies. I think it was created by some of the smartest people on the plant, but that doesn't negate the fact that its so new and we just couldn't do any long term studies. I am all for people getting with their doctor and making what decision is right for them about the vax. However, I am 100% against vaccine mandates, especially the way they are being handled. You can sat its for the public safety and all, but this has been politicized too much from day one. Remember when POTUS and VPOTUS, as candidates, said they would not take the Trump vaccine? Well, this is the same one and now they want everyone to give up their personal freedoms to choose what goes into their bodies and get the jab. Does anyone not see the hypocrisy? If this wasn't politized from day one (under Trump), we would likely have a different sentiment in the US about this, but as with everything they touch, politicians F'd this up. If you support my body, my choice, how can you support the mandate?
bpatus297 wrote:Aaron747 wrote:bpatus297 wrote:
Nope, your opinion, not logic.
Logic, def: a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/logic
It is reasonable and proper to establish that public health practitioners and experts know best how to protect medical system capacity and contain spread of disease. It is unreasonable and improper to assume that laymen, based on opinions relating to individual freedoms, know a better way. So again, simple logic. The argument that an individual's need to express liberty in whatever way they see fit - counter to expert advice, and potentially causing negative health effects for others and the community - is 'reasonable' is demonstrably untrue.
Oh Jesus, I guess you think I am dumb enough to not know what logic is. You throwing up a definition like that is being sancatamous and trying to prove yourself superior to others. the key to the definition is proper. People don't always agree on what is proper.
bpatus297 wrote:Aaron747 wrote:bpatus297 wrote:
BTW, I am by no means anti-vax, I support the Rona vax. I think the Rona vaccines are mostly safe, but I still have some concerns about the long term effects. That is mostly from a new type of vaccine that is being rolled out in record time with out long term studies. I think it was created by some of the smartest people on the plant, but that doesn't negate the fact that its so new and we just couldn't do any long term studies. I am all for people getting with their doctor and making what decision is right for them about the vax. However, I am 100% against vaccine mandates, especially the way they are being handled. You can sat its for the public safety and all, but this has been politicized too much from day one. Remember when POTUS and VPOTUS, as candidates, said they would not take the Trump vaccine? Well, this is the same one and now they want everyone to give up their personal freedoms to choose what goes into their bodies and get the jab. Does anyone not see the hypocrisy? If this wasn't politized from day one (under Trump), we would likely have a different sentiment in the US about this, but as with everything they touch, politicians F'd this up. If you support my body, my choice, how can you support the mandate?
Easy: reproductive decisions are permanent life decisions, not health decisions. The mother's decision affects her life - vaccines affect everyone, the healthcare system at large, and the economy.
As to long-term effects, that is a canard. mRNA material is in the body a few days at most and does not alter any genetic material - that can't cause long term damage, unlike a synthetic drug taken regularly that most certainly can - and that's why pharmacologics require long-term study.
Aaron747 wrote:The German government has come to the conclusion they have no choice but to restrict activities of the unvaccinated and possibly mandate compulsory jabs if parliament decides it's prudent.
[i]Only those who have been vaccinated or recently recovered from Covid will be allowed in restaurants, cinemas, leisure facilities and many shops.
bpatus297 wrote:bpatus297 wrote:Aaron747 wrote:
Easy: reproductive decisions are permanent life decisions, not health decisions. The mother's decision affects her life - vaccines affect everyone, the healthcare system at large, and the economy.
As to long-term effects, that is a canard. mRNA material is in the body a few days at most and does not alter any genetic material - that can't cause long term damage, unlike a synthetic drug taken regularly that most certainly can - and that's why pharmacologics require long-term study.
Putting a substance in your body is most certainly a permanent life decision. The argument is also that the mothers decision affects her life, AND the life of her fetus (not that we need to rehash that here). Where is the proof that mRNA doesn't cause any long term damage? It doesn't exist that I know of. Again,I think its fine and wont cause major long term effects, but I haven't seen good evidence of that, its all theory at this point as we just started using mRNA vaccines.
bpatus297 wrote:Aaron747 wrote:bpatus297 wrote:
Nope, your opinion, not logic.
Logic, def: a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/logic
It is reasonable and proper to establish that public health practitioners and experts know best how to protect medical system capacity and contain spread of disease. It is unreasonable and improper to assume that laymen, based on opinions relating to individual freedoms, know a better way. So again, simple logic. The argument that an individual's need to express liberty in whatever way they see fit - counter to expert advice, and potentially causing negative health effects for others and the community - is 'reasonable' is demonstrably untrue.
Oh Jesus, I guess you think I am dumb enough to not know what logic is. You throwing up a definition like that is being sancatamous and trying to prove yourself superior to others. the key to the definition is proper. People don't always agree on what is proper.
ltbewr wrote:If you are not vaccinated in Germany, are you supposed to wear a badge (along with a mask) if have to go out for food or take a walk to keep up your health if not infected. We know the history of that of 80+ years ago in that country and many don't like that despite the huge difference of saving lives rather than identifying those who lives won't be saved.
Aaron747 wrote:bpatus297 wrote:Aaron747 wrote:
Yes, that too. The emotional opposition is totally unfounded.
In your opinion.
No, based on simple logic.
M564038 wrote:Proper regarding this is what science says is proper.
Not opinionated average Joes.bpatus297 wrote:Aaron747 wrote:
Logic, def: a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/logic
It is reasonable and proper to establish that public health practitioners and experts know best how to protect medical system capacity and contain spread of disease. It is unreasonable and improper to assume that laymen, based on opinions relating to individual freedoms, know a better way. So again, simple logic. The argument that an individual's need to express liberty in whatever way they see fit - counter to expert advice, and potentially causing negative health effects for others and the community - is 'reasonable' is demonstrably untrue.
Oh Jesus, I guess you think I am dumb enough to not know what logic is. You throwing up a definition like that is being sancatamous and trying to prove yourself superior to others. the key to the definition is proper. People don't always agree on what is proper.
ItnStln wrote:ltbewr wrote:If you are not vaccinated in Germany, are you supposed to wear a badge (along with a mask) if have to go out for food or take a walk to keep up your health if not infected. We know the history of that of 80+ years ago in that country and many don't like that despite the huge difference of saving lives rather than identifying those who lives won't be saved.
I seem to remember a similar situation in the 1930s and 1940s in Germany.
N626AA wrote:What time span does being 'recently recovered' entail? 6 mos? 1 year?
I wonder if you are unvaxxed but just recovered from covid, say, last month, are you still required to get the vaccine?
bpatus297 wrote:M564038 wrote:Proper regarding this is what science says is proper.
Not opinionated average Joes.bpatus297 wrote:
Oh Jesus, I guess you think I am dumb enough to not know what logic is. You throwing up a definition like that is being sancatamous and trying to prove yourself superior to others. the key to the definition is proper. People don't always agree on what is proper.
Guess I missed the part that the US Government is run by scientist, not "we the people".
Aaron747 wrote:bpatus297 wrote:bpatus297 wrote:
Putting a substance in your body is most certainly a permanent life decision. The argument is also that the mothers decision affects her life, AND the life of her fetus (not that we need to rehash that here). Where is the proof that mRNA doesn't cause any long term damage? It doesn't exist that I know of. Again,I think its fine and wont cause major long term effects, but I haven't seen good evidence of that, its all theory at this point as we just started using mRNA vaccines.
The vaccines are not a 'substance' in the same way a synthesized drug is - they are just a biological message - no more, no less. They are far more simple than previous forms of vaccines in that way. And it is not 'theory' - mRNA is well-understood as a principle in molecular biology and has been for decades. This is the first time it has been deployed in vaccines, yes, but *that* approach has also been studied and tested for nearly 20 years.
More importantly, there is no evidence that mRNA tech *can* produce any long-term effects. By virtue of how they operate biologically, there is no way for them to do so.
The mRNA vaccines contain the blueprint, so to speak, for a specific component of the virus — after they are injected, the immune system is stimulated and antibodies are produced against this small part. Afterward, the mRNA is completely broken down again, according to BioNTech-Pfizer — and thus cannot trigger any late-onset long-term effects. "There is no evidence that reactions can occur at a later stage," Reinhold Förster said.
I know that mRNA is understood, what about this is a 100% new medical technology is hard to understand? Isn't this the first time, on a large scale, that we have used mRNA to to tell human bodies what to do? You just really refuse to concede that anything other than your viewpoint is valid. This has been proven thread after thread. Good day.
https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-can-co ... a-59667465
casinterest wrote:bpatus297 wrote:M564038 wrote:Proper regarding this is what science says is proper.
Not opinionated average Joes.
Guess I missed the part that the US Government is run by scientist, not "we the people".
Guess I missed the part where you are still using the technology that scientists and engineers created to communicate. . If you don't trust scientists, get rid of your electronics now. It has a higher chance of killing you than the vaccine.
bpatus297 wrote:casinterest wrote:bpatus297 wrote:
Guess I missed the part that the US Government is run by scientist, not "we the people".
Guess I missed the part where you are still using the technology that scientists and engineers created to communicate. . If you don't trust scientists, get rid of your electronics now. It has a higher chance of killing you than the vaccine.
Jesus, here we go again with strawman arguments and fallacies. Stay focused, I have stated that I am not anti-vax and that i support the Rona vaccine, but am anti-mandate. The mandate takes away the liberties protected in the Constitution, its that simple.
bpatus297 wrote:Aaron747 wrote:bpatus297 wrote:
Putting a substance in your body is most certainly a permanent life decision. The argument is also that the mothers decision affects her life, AND the life of her fetus (not that we need to rehash that here). Where is the proof that mRNA doesn't cause any long term damage? It doesn't exist that I know of. Again,I think its fine and wont cause major long term effects, but I haven't seen good evidence of that, its all theory at this point as we just started using mRNA vaccines.
The vaccines are not a 'substance' in the same way a synthesized drug is - they are just a biological message - no more, no less. They are far more simple than previous forms of vaccines in that way. And it is not 'theory' - mRNA is well-understood as a principle in molecular biology and has been for decades. This is the first time it has been deployed in vaccines, yes, but *that* approach has also been studied and tested for nearly 20 years.
More importantly, there is no evidence that mRNA tech *can* produce any long-term effects. By virtue of how they operate biologically, there is no way for them to do so.
The mRNA vaccines contain the blueprint, so to speak, for a specific component of the virus — after they are injected, the immune system is stimulated and antibodies are produced against this small part. Afterward, the mRNA is completely broken down again, according to BioNTech-Pfizer — and thus cannot trigger any late-onset long-term effects. "There is no evidence that reactions can occur at a later stage," Reinhold Förster said.
I know that mRNA is understood, what about this is a 100% new medical technology is hard to understand? Isn't this the first time, on a large scale, that we have used mRNA to to tell human bodies what to do? You just really refuse to concede that anything other than your viewpoint is valid. This has been proven thread after thread. Good day.
https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-can-co ... a-59667465
casinterest wrote:bpatus297 wrote:casinterest wrote:
Guess I missed the part where you are still using the technology that scientists and engineers created to communicate. . If you don't trust scientists, get rid of your electronics now. It has a higher chance of killing you than the vaccine.
Jesus, here we go again with strawman arguments and fallacies. Stay focused, I have stated that I am not anti-vax and that i support the Rona vaccine, but am anti-mandate. The mandate takes away the liberties protected in the Constitution, its that simple.
The mandates save lives so people that have REAL Medical issues with the vaccine get to enjoy the constitution longer. At this point, If it wasn't for those that are vulnerable, I would say to hell with the madates, and let the stupid people take their chances with real medical consequences, and have them sign an exclusion waiver on medical assistance related to Covid.
Aaron747 wrote:ItnStln wrote:ltbewr wrote:If you are not vaccinated in Germany, are you supposed to wear a badge (along with a mask) if have to go out for food or take a walk to keep up your health if not infected. We know the history of that of 80+ years ago in that country and many don't like that despite the huge difference of saving lives rather than identifying those who lives won't be saved.
I seem to remember a similar situation in the 1930s and 1940s in Germany.
Our German friend Tommy already called out the absurdity of that equivocation upthread - I suggest reading it to avoid further embarassment.
ltbewr wrote:If you are not vaccinated in Germany, are you supposed to wear a badge (along with a mask) if have to go out for food or take a walk to keep up your health if not infected. We know the history of that of 80+ years ago in that country and many don't like that despite the huge difference of saving lives rather than identifying those who lives won't be saved.
GalaxyFlyer wrote:Might the historical fact that Saxony was part of the DDR have relevance?
FlapOperator wrote:ltbewr wrote:If you are not vaccinated in Germany, are you supposed to wear a badge (along with a mask) if have to go out for food or take a walk to keep up your health if not infected. We know the history of that of 80+ years ago in that country and many don't like that despite the huge difference of saving lives rather than identifying those who lives won't be saved.
We've already shown in this thread, that if you don't show enough "social solidarity" whatever that means, you don't get social services.
I mean, I wish that was the standard for lots of things, like say, serving directly in uniform a totalitarian state, but I guess that doesn't.
ItnStln wrote:Aaron747 wrote:bpatus297 wrote:
In your opinion.
No, based on simple logic.
That is, quite literally, nothing more than your opinion!
ItnStln wrote:Aaron747 wrote:ItnStln wrote:I seem to remember a similar situation in the 1930s and 1940s in Germany.
Our German friend Tommy already called out the absurdity of that equivocation upthread - I suggest reading it to avoid further embarassment.
What I said is a perfect analogy, and not a false equivocation as you allude to. It is in fact you who needs to avoid further embarassment!
ItnStln wrote:FlapOperator wrote:ltbewr wrote:If you are not vaccinated in Germany, are you supposed to wear a badge (along with a mask) if have to go out for food or take a walk to keep up your health if not infected. We know the history of that of 80+ years ago in that country and many don't like that despite the huge difference of saving lives rather than identifying those who lives won't be saved.
We've already shown in this thread, that if you don't show enough "social solidarity" whatever that means, you don't get social services.
I mean, I wish that was the standard for lots of things, like say, serving directly in uniform a totalitarian state, but I guess that doesn't.
What is social solidarity?