4 ms·
I am curious to see how this goes, because it will also be a clear indicator where our society and civilization is heading if there is no legal recourse against
by frankfrankfrank 5y ago
I am curious to see how this goes, because it will also be a clear indicator where our society and civilization is heading if there is no legal recourse against illegitimate authoritarian dictates that simply alter established practices to follow form over function.
There is of course also the issue that mandates come with legal liability for consequences that manufacturers are seemingly not liable for. However, when you mandate or pressure your employees, you are violating several laws, let alone fundamental human rights, and you are also not just taking responsibility for the effects/impacts but you are unnecessarily grabbing hold of that liability when it is not at all necessary. It is kind of mind boggling that we are facing a situation where people, companies, and organizations are increasing their legal risks by purposefully taking on legal liabilities they would not have by doing nothing.
I know someone with a totally inexplicable, debilitating, possibly neurological issue (but no one can tell her after ~5 months) that started with the injection. She chose to submit herself to the experimental treatment and is therefore personally liable even if it kills her. The manufacturers have been given immunity, but that liability will be taken on by employers that choose to mandated/coerce the injections.
I don't think people, organizations, and corporations are taking that into account adequately and are rather mindlessly rushing to grab the legal liability bag that the manufacturers were exempt from.
It's rather irrational and actually quite insane. I cannot make sense of why it is happening. One guess is that it is the effects of moral hazard after decades of nearly zero consequences for the administrative and ruling class. There are never consequences, so why not jump in head long that has never produced meaningful consequences and also in most casts has been quite profitable. Of course you would sycophantically rush to be the most obsequious to the system.
Nothing else makes any sober sense to me.
- josephorjoe 5y agoserious question: are you a bot? nice use of the oxford comma btw.
- hudsonjr 5y agoI work for a company that I consider pro-vax, but they are not requiring vaccination. My guess it is for liability reasons, and they will probably defer to local regulations. I'm vaccinated and everyone I know is, but I cringe a bit at the tolerance of what seems authoritarian to me. If I were to wager, things get better once antiviral treatments improve and when data analysis gets better, not when "full compliance" happens. To me it's clear that there is a seasonal nature, but it varies based on latitude/climate/time of year. For whatever reason it seems taboo to mention this. Anyone wanting to prove a point about masks/vaccines working or not working often compares one region/climate to another.
- 123jay7 5y agoHow come people write like this about one particular vaccine but not the dozens of other mandated jabs that have saved peoples lives.