Mandated vaccines or weekly testing for employers of 100+ people.......

[wtburnette]

If the true concern behind the Vaccine Mandate is the health of the nation why are cigarettes still legal?

Follow the science or follow the money?

Well, the mandate is not and never has been about public health, so...

 

[jamil]

Does that include polio and tetanus?

Who is under threat of becoming unemployable by rule if they don’t get a polio or tetanus vaccine?

 

[Magyars]

 

[wtburnette]

Who is under threat of becoming unemployable by rule if they don’t get a polio or tetanus vaccine?

No one, it's a completely bogus argument.

 

[jamil]

No one, it's a completely bogus argument.

There’s a legitimate pushback for the sentiments about not really being free if you do something you oppose for the same of freedom. Like how consistent are you? It’s a harder case to make if we look at the extreme. Let’s say that the disease kills 100%. It’s very contagious. A vaccine comes along that is proven 100% effective and is proven 99.99% safe. Does the same meme apply then?

Or. Is it consistent across domains? If you obey any law you don’t agree with to have some level of freedom eithin society, does that make you unfree? I think that’s a legitimate question. I think the answer to that is, it depends on the circumstances.

In this case, the sentiment is correct. Such a mandate is not consistent with or justified by the facts of circumstances. The rule is arbitrarily applied for a purpose that is discordant with the facts.

“Oh, who cares if the rule is justifiable, just get the vaccine so you can keep your job,” is exactly what the meme is getting at. And in this circumstance it is true.

 

[KittySlayer]

View attachment 166536

Cars?
Cigarettes?
Guns?

Inquiring minds want to know…

 

[jamil]

Well, the mandate is not and never has been about public health, so...

I watched a bit of the questioning about the mandate, specifically about natural immunity, in congress. As whatsherface talked about all the studies they reviewed, I wondered when they started their review? Has it been ongoing? Wa it before Biden issued the EO or after? Was it done to justify the order, or was the order driven by the data?

It looks to me like not enough people were getting jabbed, they wanted more people getting jabbed, so they sought information to justify what they wanted. And so the outcome of the research wS predetermined. The survey of all ninety-something studies about natural immunity was always gonna justify the mandates before they looked at the first one.

It’s just like purchasing the doses for kids 5-11. The 0biden administration did it before they were approved. They were always going to be approved. There was no data that could have stopped it, because the decision to purchase wasn’t data-driven. Just like the decision to unemploy unvaccinated people was not data-driven.

 

[jamil]

Cars?
Cigarettes?
Guns?

Inquiring minds want to know…

That just exemplifies the consistency. Cigarettes? No, people are free to smoke, but less so where it affects others. Cars? No, people are free ti drive cars, albeit with rules that at least ostensibly curtail deaths and injuries. Guns? Well. They can take lives and they can save lives.

 

[Flash-hider]

It is now apparent the vaccine can affect one's mental health.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

It is now apparent the vaccine can affect one's mental health.

Judging by her eyes, I'm thinking that one had issues long before Covid and the vaccine were even in the picture.

 

[buckwacker]

A very clear window into the fathomless depravity of the leftist mind. These people are 21st century Nazis, and will act accordingly, mark my words.

 

[buckwacker]

This should mean the end of vaccine EUA and mandates then, right?

Pfizer Shares Surge After Release Of 'Miracle' COVID Pill That Is 89% Effective At Preventing Hospitalization | ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

So do we need to ratio 89% effective by the realized\touted effectiveness of their vaccine?

 

[Leadeye]

This should mean the end of vaccine EUA and mandates then, right?

Pfizer Shares Surge After Release Of 'Miracle' COVID Pill That Is 89% Effective At Preventing Hospitalization | ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

So do we need to ratio 89% effective by the realized\touted effectiveness of their vaccine?

I would imagine that people in general find pills to be more palatable than shots, even though it's for the same thing. It's also possible that the margins in pills are greater than they are in shots, in which case, ...

Always follow the money

 

[buckwacker]

I would imagine that people in general find pills to be more palatable than shots, even though it's for the same thing. It's also possible that the margins in pills are greater than they are in shots, in which case, ...

Always follow the money

Does an EUA for an oral covid treatment invalidate the EUA for vaccines? Or can they both exist simultaneously?

From the FDAs website:
Under section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), when the Secretary of HHS declares that an emergency use authorization is appropriate, FDA may authorize unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions caused by CBRN threat agents when certain criteria are met, including there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.

Not that anyone in government follows rules or laws anyway, so I'm not sure why I bothered looking it up.

 

[Magyars]

Cars?
Cigarettes?
Guns?

Inquiring minds want to know…

In 6 months?

 

[JettaKnight]

Who is under threat of becoming unemployable by rule if they don’t get a polio or tetanus vaccine?

Just asking the logical question.


if those are cool, then it sounds like the objection isn't to the vaccine, just to be being told you should (or must ) get it. Which backs up my assertion that people would stop wearing pants if the government told you to do it.

FTR, I totally against these mandates - I think they're unnecessary, introsive, and divisive. In the end they will do more harm than good.

But if .gov says to do something, that doesn't necessarily mean it's bad, or if I do it, that doesn't mean I'm submitting.

 

[printcraft]

 

[wtburnette]

Just asking the logical question.


if those are cool, then it sounds like the objection isn't to the vaccine, just to be being told you should (or must ) get it. Which backs up my assertion that people would stop wearing pants if the government told you to do it.

FTR, I totally against these mandates - I think they're unnecessary, introsive, and divisive. In the end they will do more harm than good.

But if .gov says to do something, that doesn't necessarily mean it's bad, or if I do it, that doesn't mean I'm submitting.

Not a logical question at all. The reasons that people are against this particular vaccine (or for this particular virus) have been listed over and over, they just aren't sinking in for you. You can disagree, but continuing to say that people who don't agree with you aren't being logical, or don't know what they're talking about is just plain wrong. I will agree with you on the mandates though. They are wrong.

.Gov can say whatever it likes. I'll look at it from many different perspectives to determine if it's something I can agree with or not. I don't automatically disagree, though I'll say my first reaction will always be caution, as .Gov doesn't have my best interests in mind most of the time.

 

[1nderbeard]

Consider supporting the Daily Wire. They just filed a lawsuit against this mandate, and have openly said they will stand in defiance of the mandate.

dailywire.com/subscribe

use Donotcomply code for 25% off.

 

[jamil]

Just asking the logical question.


if those are cool, then it sounds like the objection isn't to the vaccine, just to be being told you should (or must ) get it. Which backs up my assertion that people would stop wearing pants if the government told you to do it.

FTR, I totally against these mandates - I think they're unnecessary, introsive, and divisive. In the end they will do more harm than good.

But if .gov says to do something, that doesn't necessarily mean it's bad, or if I do it, that doesn't mean I'm submitting.

I understand where you’re going with it. It’s a poor way to make the case. You still haven’t hit on the reason people are against it. It’s not JUST because the government said so. Look at my other post on the subject. Maybe it would help.