3 ms·

Far too many points in one post to reply properly. I'll pick JUST vaccine mandates. This is what I want to see: everyone that the vaccine is authorized for us

Far too many points in one post to reply properly. I'll pick JUST vaccine mandates. This is what I want to see: everyone that the vaccine is authorized for use in, should be required, under penalty of detention in quarantine bubbles, to be vaccinated. Exceptions: 1) Medically infirm to the point of specialized, dedicated care which states on a record to the health departments that this individual is medically compromised and ineligible for a wide range of medical treatments, not just this latest vaccine. 2) Individuals too young for current vaccine approval ranges (E.G. emergency use authorized, but not wide approval). 3) Hard core anti-medical religious exemption, full DNR, Do-not-medicate, natural care people. This also includes end of life hospice care (which is a bit more sane IMO) as well as anyone that wants to live like it's 1600. A reader might note I've made a distinction between people that only refuse the pandemic vaccines and still want all other 'normal' medical care VERSUS those who either already have abnormal medical care or want only non-life-extending (E.G. pain management) care. The intention here is to promote herd immunity via as prolific application of vaccination as possible while retaining fairness towards edge cases not caused by insanity but merely unfortunate circumstances, and fairness towards legitimate religious exceptions rather than some 'want to feel special' misuse of that tag. Anyone else can be arrested, detained in a drunk / quarantine tank, and while under supervised authority standard medical care applied (I.E. having been found guilty of endangering the public through lack of civil responsibility, incarcerated for... say a month and during that month they'd be given both shots.)

ukraineally 5y ago
>Far too many points in one post to reply properly. Sorry, complicated issue, I could have gone much more deep as well. >This is what I want to see: everyone that the vaccine is authorized for use in, should be required, under penalty of detention in quarantine bubbles, to be vaccinated. I am fully vaccinated but I will not be getting a booster until some very serious improvements in human rights are returned. Certainly an interesting take. "penalty of detention" means prison. So you want to remove voluntary and informed consent when it comes to medication under threat of force, coercion and removing free will in a matter of bodily autonomy? >Exceptions I did not read your exceptions at all. I have some questions about the first part. Let me define my position a little clearer than above. The person involved in medical treatment should have legal capacity to give consent; should be situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion, and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. Do you disagree with this statement? I would really like to know that before we continue.
- mjevans 5y ago
  Freedom of choice stops when it infringes upon the rights of others. Dangerous things are either banned, or regulated. This includes operating deadly equipment (drivers licenses) and it includes dress codes in pubic (sanitation is important!). Notably most places only request customers wash their hands but require employees to. That is a distinction made because of the extremely high risk of improper sanitation during food prep versus consumption. Restaurants, including fast food, __should__ be cleaning tables and other common surfaces between uses or at least very frequently to minimize risk. My position includes enforcement of "herd immunity" (vaccination to the greatest extent possible) as a requirement for participating in society, and then narrowly allows exceptions only where it would not be effective / be greatly riskier for the personal health of the individual than the prevention (thus including the person in the narrow class most protected by the immunity among _others_ rather than a personal contribution to that shared social immunity), OR for those who shun all medical care entirely as a wholistic religious exemption of entirely opting out of that social sector and responsibility as well. Limiting to only those two classes, plus those for whom the vaccines are not authorized, should hopefully still retain a sufficient group resistance to cause outbreaks to fizzle out, rather than flare up and spread. Please take the time to read my entire premise (initial reply) and make an attempt to understand the full logic before commenting on it.
  - okeuro49 5y ago
    As I understand the word "vaccine", it is something the confers lasting protection. The goalposts have been shifted for this vaccine, as it only lasts for a few months. Israel is one of the most vaccinated populations in the world, but it didn't stop waves of mutations. So I won't be forced to take the 3rd, 4th, 5th "booster" to remain a part of society. In the UK we have had no mandates and our health service didn't collapse this winter time. Covid was never a lethal illness for the majority of adults. The issue was that it could cause national health services to collapse from sheer number of cases. Now that is no longer a threat, there is no longer any justification for limits on individual liberty.
    - mjevans 5y ago

ukraineally 5y ago

>Far too many points in one post to reply properly. Sorry, complicated issue, I could have gone much more deep as well. >This is what I want to see: everyone that the vaccine is authorized for use in, should be required, under penalty of detention in quarantine bubbles, to be vaccinated. I am fully vaccinated but I will not be getting a booster until some very serious improvements in human rights are returned. Certainly an interesting take. "penalty of detention" means prison. So you want to remove voluntary and informed consent when it comes to medication under threat of force, coercion and removing free will in a matter of bodily autonomy? >Exceptions I did not read your exceptions at all. I have some questions about the first part. Let me define my position a little clearer than above. The person involved in medical treatment should have legal capacity to give consent; should be situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion, and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. Do you disagree with this statement? I would really like to know that before we continue.

mjevans 5y ago
Freedom of choice stops when it infringes upon the rights of others. Dangerous things are either banned, or regulated. This includes operating deadly equipment (drivers licenses) and it includes dress codes in pubic (sanitation is important!). Notably most places only request customers wash their hands but require employees to. That is a distinction made because of the extremely high risk of improper sanitation during food prep versus consumption. Restaurants, including fast food, __should__ be cleaning tables and other common surfaces between uses or at least very frequently to minimize risk. My position includes enforcement of "herd immunity" (vaccination to the greatest extent possible) as a requirement for participating in society, and then narrowly allows exceptions only where it would not be effective / be greatly riskier for the personal health of the individual than the prevention (thus including the person in the narrow class most protected by the immunity among _others_ rather than a personal contribution to that shared social immunity), OR for those who shun all medical care entirely as a wholistic religious exemption of entirely opting out of that social sector and responsibility as well. Limiting to only those two classes, plus those for whom the vaccines are not authorized, should hopefully still retain a sufficient group resistance to cause outbreaks to fizzle out, rather than flare up and spread. Please take the time to read my entire premise (initial reply) and make an attempt to understand the full logic before commenting on it.
- okeuro49 5y ago
  As I understand the word "vaccine", it is something the confers lasting protection. The goalposts have been shifted for this vaccine, as it only lasts for a few months. Israel is one of the most vaccinated populations in the world, but it didn't stop waves of mutations. So I won't be forced to take the 3rd, 4th, 5th "booster" to remain a part of society. In the UK we have had no mandates and our health service didn't collapse this winter time. Covid was never a lethal illness for the majority of adults. The issue was that it could cause national health services to collapse from sheer number of cases. Now that is no longer a threat, there is no longer any justification for limits on individual liberty.
  - mjevans 5y ago