5 ms·

PAGE 20 Of course, the principles at stake when it comes to the Mandate are not reducible to dollars and cents. The public interest is

PAGE 20 Of course, the principles at stake when it comes to the Mandate are not reducible to dollars and cents. The public interest is also served by maintaining our constitutional structure and maintaining the liberty of individuals to make intensely personal decisions according to their own convictions—even, or perhaps particularly, when those decisions frustrate government officials.

_ddzr 5y ago
I had to get the MMR, varicella, Mantoux test, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, and several other vaccines to work in healthcare. Children need to get a host of vaccines to go to school and that has been true for a hundred years. The only thing new here is a politically driven disregard for human life.
- wingspar 5y ago
  And those childhood vaccines are required by STATE law, using the states legal authority. The injunction spells out that the states have ‘police authority’ in this area, not the federal government.
  - bandyaboot 5y ago
    So do you think OSHA has any legal authority regarding occupational safety and health? Is their existing regulatory authority unconstitutional across the board?
    - wingspar 5y ago
      It’s all spelled out in the court ruling. OSHA derives it’s power from the commerce clause which gives Congress authority over interstate commerce activities. It’s a very clearly written decision.
- theodorejb 5y ago
  Never before have I seen restaurants and hospitals requiring me to show proof of a particular medical treatment before they will serve me.
  - westcort 5y ago
    Been a hundred years since the last big pandemic…guess you hadn’t seen it all yet.
    - gruez 5y ago
      Isn't this just an argument from ignorance? We probably have written records from the last pandemic. If you really think that the parent post is incorrect, why not furnish evidence?
      - westcort 5y ago
        The whole premise of protecting the replication of a virus at the expense of human life is an argument from ignorance. What if this and what if that and whining about not wanting a little inconvenience to protect my job and my life and my neighbor’s life…what a bunch of entitled snowflakes
        gruez 5y ago
        [flagged]
        westcort 5y ago
        Protecting the virus is an argument from ignorance because the arguments used are provocative what if’s like: “What if mandates are used this way or that way” or “What if it’s not safe.” It’s a lot of hand wringing and cowardice when there is a clear right course of action here to get us out of this crisis. To be against the mandate on moral grounds cannot be moral, because killing people is wrong and perpetuating the virus is anti-human. It seems like there are a lot of people out here whose morals involve choosing to kill their own grandparents because there is an asterisk in an obscure legal document they can use to cover their cowardice.
- vadfa 5y ago
  Those vaccines have been tested widely and proven safe for decades.
  - westcort 5y ago
    You are exposed to millions of antigens daily, and almost none are FDA approved. This isn’t at all like a new chemical entity, it is a short-lived antigen that trains your immune system, then goes away. This isn’t 1960, it’s 2021. It’s safe, certainly safer than COVID, and necessary to protect you, your family, your neighbors, and our society.
- logicalmonster 5y ago
  For what it's worth: religious, medical, and philosophical exemptions to various immunization requirements have also been some kind of thing forever in various locations. And in the past, nobody hyperventilated about their own immunity not working if another person wasn't immunized for some reason. > The only thing new here is a politically driven disregard for human life. The only new thing here? And you can read minds and are certain that the only possible motive here is a disregard for human life? Really? That is not a serious comment. I'd argue there's a lot of new things and qualitative differences here. Here are 2 big ones you should consider. #1) Once the technology to measure clicks was invented, the business model of the mass media has changed from promoting how trustworthy they were to a competition about driving traffic through emotional manipulation (fear, anger, sadness, etc). What media somebody uses has a big impact on how they trust either the Covid-Fear-Porn or Vaccine-Fear-Porn presented. #2) These vaccine were developed in a much different and quicker fashion than previous vaccines: many of which took around 10+ years of development and testing before being introduced into a mass audience. I think it's entirely rational to be more than a little cautious about the short-term side effects and long-term problems with these new vaccines. It's very easy to see why somebody who took plenty of previous vaccines is cautious about these vaccines.
- disambiguation 5y ago
  People bring up precedence a lot. I hope the same people consider that: 1. Not all vaccines are required go participate in society. 2. I believe this is the first vaccine to be mandated within 12 months of its distribution, though I'd love to be proven wrong about that.

_ddzr 5y ago

I had to get the MMR, varicella, Mantoux test, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, and several other vaccines to work in healthcare. Children need to get a host of vaccines to go to school and that has been true for a hundred years. The only thing new here is a politically driven disregard for human life.

wingspar 5y ago
And those childhood vaccines are required by STATE law, using the states legal authority. The injunction spells out that the states have ‘police authority’ in this area, not the federal government.
- bandyaboot 5y ago
  So do you think OSHA has any legal authority regarding occupational safety and health? Is their existing regulatory authority unconstitutional across the board?
  - wingspar 5y ago
    It’s all spelled out in the court ruling. OSHA derives it’s power from the commerce clause which gives Congress authority over interstate commerce activities. It’s a very clearly written decision.
theodorejb 5y ago
Never before have I seen restaurants and hospitals requiring me to show proof of a particular medical treatment before they will serve me.
- westcort 5y ago
  Been a hundred years since the last big pandemic…guess you hadn’t seen it all yet.
  - gruez 5y ago
    Isn't this just an argument from ignorance? We probably have written records from the last pandemic. If you really think that the parent post is incorrect, why not furnish evidence?
    - westcort 5y ago
      The whole premise of protecting the replication of a virus at the expense of human life is an argument from ignorance. What if this and what if that and whining about not wanting a little inconvenience to protect my job and my life and my neighbor’s life…what a bunch of entitled snowflakes
      - gruez 5y ago
        [flagged]
        westcort 5y ago
        Protecting the virus is an argument from ignorance because the arguments used are provocative what if’s like: “What if mandates are used this way or that way” or “What if it’s not safe.” It’s a lot of hand wringing and cowardice when there is a clear right course of action here to get us out of this crisis. To be against the mandate on moral grounds cannot be moral, because killing people is wrong and perpetuating the virus is anti-human. It seems like there are a lot of people out here whose morals involve choosing to kill their own grandparents because there is an asterisk in an obscure legal document they can use to cover their cowardice.
vadfa 5y ago
Those vaccines have been tested widely and proven safe for decades.
- westcort 5y ago
  You are exposed to millions of antigens daily, and almost none are FDA approved. This isn’t at all like a new chemical entity, it is a short-lived antigen that trains your immune system, then goes away. This isn’t 1960, it’s 2021. It’s safe, certainly safer than COVID, and necessary to protect you, your family, your neighbors, and our society.
logicalmonster 5y ago
For what it's worth: religious, medical, and philosophical exemptions to various immunization requirements have also been some kind of thing forever in various locations. And in the past, nobody hyperventilated about their own immunity not working if another person wasn't immunized for some reason. > The only thing new here is a politically driven disregard for human life. The only new thing here? And you can read minds and are certain that the only possible motive here is a disregard for human life? Really? That is not a serious comment. I'd argue there's a lot of new things and qualitative differences here. Here are 2 big ones you should consider. #1) Once the technology to measure clicks was invented, the business model of the mass media has changed from promoting how trustworthy they were to a competition about driving traffic through emotional manipulation (fear, anger, sadness, etc). What media somebody uses has a big impact on how they trust either the Covid-Fear-Porn or Vaccine-Fear-Porn presented. #2) These vaccine were developed in a much different and quicker fashion than previous vaccines: many of which took around 10+ years of development and testing before being introduced into a mass audience. I think it's entirely rational to be more than a little cautious about the short-term side effects and long-term problems with these new vaccines. It's very easy to see why somebody who took plenty of previous vaccines is cautious about these vaccines.
disambiguation 5y ago
People bring up precedence a lot. I hope the same people consider that: 1. Not all vaccines are required go participate in society. 2. I believe this is the first vaccine to be mandated within 12 months of its distribution, though I'd love to be proven wrong about that.