4 ms·

I may not refuse tetanus and flu shots but I will 100% retain my RIGHT to refuse those shots. It's 100% the responsibility of the government to prove both the u

I may not refuse tetanus and flu shots but I will 100% retain my RIGHT to refuse those shots. It's 100% the responsibility of the government to prove both the utmost necessity and the spread-prevention efficacy of any medical procedure the government forces upon its citizens.

falcolas 5y ago
And society has an equal right to quarantine people who could spread a deadly, infectious disease to protect the vulnerable. As George Washington himself did. Whose rights are greater?
- insickness 5y ago
  > Whose rights are greater? No one's "rights are greater." This is a false dichotomy. Does the government have a right to force people to take the flu shot? No. If a flu came along that was so deadly that the government wanted to force people to get the flu shot, then the government would need to prove the necessity and the spread-prevention efficacy of that medical procedure.
  - ZoomerCretin 5y ago
    >Does the government have a right to force people to take the flu shot? No. If you're talking about the United States, this question has been settled at the federal level by the Supreme Court for over a century. At the state level, the first vaccine mandate was in 1809. Most states have vaccine mandates for children, many of them with only medical exemptions. It's legal. It's not some great infringement on your rights.
    - peteradio 5y ago
      > It's not some great infringement on your rights. The fact that the treatment varies state by state shows that people do consider this to be a right worth retaining, and in high enough populations to hold sway over local Government up to the state level.
      - ZoomerCretin 5y ago
        >The fact that the treatment varies state by state shows that people do consider this to be a right worth retaining Yes, we live in an age of mass-indoctrination. If Fox News runs Anti-Food Safety segments 24/7 for months, we're probably going to have a few states that remove punishment/fines/laws for people who prepare food with shit on their hands. That doesn't mean that serving food with shit in it is an inalienable right.
        shukantpal 5y ago
        Ironic
        peteradio 5y ago
        More likely you end up with farmers who can sell milk according to the buyers desires.
    - rsj_hn 5y ago
      > this question has been settled at the federal level by the Supreme Court for over a century. Right, the Federal government does not have the right to force the public to take a shot, while states may. It may appear that public health is being run at the national level, but really the CDC issues recommendations and many states ignore these recommendations and replace them with their own. Public health is run by the states, but that doesn't mean the state can do whatever it wants. Each state has its own constitution, and its own state supreme court that verifies whether any mandate is lawful, so this is going to depend on the state constitution and local public health laws.
- peteradio 5y ago
  George Washington by all accounts was a rebel traitor (in the best way possible). Should we see whatever words of wisdom he had? What would he see in our government today?
- xdennis 5y ago
  * George Washington was dealing with smallpox which kills 20—30 % of those infected. * Quarantines have been used since the middle ages and they were used against people showing symptoms or groups of people likely to have the disease. We haven't had quarantines with covid. We've shut down society as a whole.
- Jensson 5y ago
  Omicron spread all throughout the world via vaccinated people at historical record speed. Vaccination is evidently not a good way to prevent spread right now, mandating vaccines to prevent spread therefore doesn't make sense. If you want to prevent spread you mandate a lockdown or similar, not vaccine. Vaccine might help lessen severity, in which case you need to mandate it for populations at risk. But it doesn't make sense to mandate it to prevent spread, since it doesn't.
  - q1w2 5y ago
    You cannot conclude your 2nd sentence from your first. The relative rates of serious disease AND the transmission rate have both been demonstrated to be lower for vaccinated and boosted people - even with the Omicron variant. Vaccines, even when not fully effective, greatly reduce the amount of virus you shed, and thus significantly reduce transmission. Anecdotes are near-worthless, but I will share that my neighbor got covid. He was vaccinated and boosted. His wife and him felt sick, as did their infant (obviously not vaccinated), for two days. TWO DAYS ONLY. ...and their other two children never contracted it at all - tested negative twice each. Getting vaccinated reduces disease severity AND transmission.
- lenkite 5y ago
  A disease that kills 20-30% of the population halted in its path by the smallpox vaccine which gives IMMUNITY for decades! The Covid vaccines are fraudulent and more and more people are realising this. The CDC changing the definition of a vaccine from "providing immunity" to "increasing protection" just after Covid-vaccinated people started getting infected shows arm-in-arm corruption with big pharma. Your 10th booster shot will kill you not save you.
basch 5y ago
Stanford is a private school. Do they not have the right to self determination and to choose how to build their own community? If they want people whos response to a booster are either "yes please" or "no skin off my back, I have better things to worry about" or "I personally dont agree with this but not a hill worth falling on" then I think that is their prerogative and within their power.

falcolas 5y ago

And society has an equal right to quarantine people who could spread a deadly, infectious disease to protect the vulnerable. As George Washington himself did. Whose rights are greater?

insickness 5y ago
> Whose rights are greater? No one's "rights are greater." This is a false dichotomy. Does the government have a right to force people to take the flu shot? No. If a flu came along that was so deadly that the government wanted to force people to get the flu shot, then the government would need to prove the necessity and the spread-prevention efficacy of that medical procedure.
- ZoomerCretin 5y ago
  >Does the government have a right to force people to take the flu shot? No. If you're talking about the United States, this question has been settled at the federal level by the Supreme Court for over a century. At the state level, the first vaccine mandate was in 1809. Most states have vaccine mandates for children, many of them with only medical exemptions. It's legal. It's not some great infringement on your rights.
  - peteradio 5y ago
    > It's not some great infringement on your rights. The fact that the treatment varies state by state shows that people do consider this to be a right worth retaining, and in high enough populations to hold sway over local Government up to the state level.
    - ZoomerCretin 5y ago
      >The fact that the treatment varies state by state shows that people do consider this to be a right worth retaining Yes, we live in an age of mass-indoctrination. If Fox News runs Anti-Food Safety segments 24/7 for months, we're probably going to have a few states that remove punishment/fines/laws for people who prepare food with shit on their hands. That doesn't mean that serving food with shit in it is an inalienable right.
      - shukantpal 5y ago
        Ironic
      - peteradio 5y ago
        More likely you end up with farmers who can sell milk according to the buyers desires.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    > this question has been settled at the federal level by the Supreme Court for over a century. Right, the Federal government does not have the right to force the public to take a shot, while states may. It may appear that public health is being run at the national level, but really the CDC issues recommendations and many states ignore these recommendations and replace them with their own. Public health is run by the states, but that doesn't mean the state can do whatever it wants. Each state has its own constitution, and its own state supreme court that verifies whether any mandate is lawful, so this is going to depend on the state constitution and local public health laws.
peteradio 5y ago
George Washington by all accounts was a rebel traitor (in the best way possible). Should we see whatever words of wisdom he had? What would he see in our government today?
xdennis 5y ago
* George Washington was dealing with smallpox which kills 20—30 % of those infected. * Quarantines have been used since the middle ages and they were used against people showing symptoms or groups of people likely to have the disease. We haven't had quarantines with covid. We've shut down society as a whole.
Jensson 5y ago
Omicron spread all throughout the world via vaccinated people at historical record speed. Vaccination is evidently not a good way to prevent spread right now, mandating vaccines to prevent spread therefore doesn't make sense. If you want to prevent spread you mandate a lockdown or similar, not vaccine. Vaccine might help lessen severity, in which case you need to mandate it for populations at risk. But it doesn't make sense to mandate it to prevent spread, since it doesn't.
- q1w2 5y ago
  You cannot conclude your 2nd sentence from your first. The relative rates of serious disease AND the transmission rate have both been demonstrated to be lower for vaccinated and boosted people - even with the Omicron variant. Vaccines, even when not fully effective, greatly reduce the amount of virus you shed, and thus significantly reduce transmission. Anecdotes are near-worthless, but I will share that my neighbor got covid. He was vaccinated and boosted. His wife and him felt sick, as did their infant (obviously not vaccinated), for two days. TWO DAYS ONLY. ...and their other two children never contracted it at all - tested negative twice each. Getting vaccinated reduces disease severity AND transmission.
lenkite 5y ago
A disease that kills 20-30% of the population halted in its path by the smallpox vaccine which gives IMMUNITY for decades! The Covid vaccines are fraudulent and more and more people are realising this. The CDC changing the definition of a vaccine from "providing immunity" to "increasing protection" just after Covid-vaccinated people started getting infected shows arm-in-arm corruption with big pharma. Your 10th booster shot will kill you not save you.

basch 5y ago

Stanford is a private school. Do they not have the right to self determination and to choose how to build their own community? If they want people whos response to a booster are either "yes please" or "no skin off my back, I have better things to worry about" or "I personally dont agree with this but not a hill worth falling on" then I think that is their prerogative and within their power.