Where is the mandate?

That wasn't claimed to be capitalism.

What is capitalism is what came next - Trump working to ensure that Pfizer had full patent rights, continuing to address people's risk even after first inoculations, blocking government supported distribution to poverty stricken nations, etc.

As for the "coercion" claim, our various levels of government do require us to take steps to defend against various problems that we face as a whole - that is, where what I do impacts others.

Obviously, that is part of living together as a country where we are in close proximity to each other.

 

Government? Because it's an employer. Employers, be they government or private, have a right to set their conditions for employment.
If my employer mandated the shot, would I take it? They did, and I did.

 

That's just for federal employees and contractors. That doesn't affect all the other employers who have 100 or more employees. Are you being disingenuous? That the testing opt-out wouldn't apply to federal employees and contractors was known from the beginning.

 

These mandates make no sense. Those that got the shot early are no longer protected (noting that they were never fully protected in the first place) and are now as much risk to their fellow workers as those that haven't gotten the shot. The data clearly shows this.

The only way the mandate would make sense is to require an initial shot, followed up by a booster 6 months later, with additional booster requirements to be determined. *Note that the CDC has already listed those eligible for a 4th shot.*

Of course, there would be a much larger pushback than we are seeing now if this were to happen, so that part goes unsaid. Which leaves us with a half-assed mandate that does little for public health except for creating a false sense of security while causing turmoil between employees and employers.

The question left is do we stay with a feel-good mandate that does little or go full authoritarian and really piss people off?

 

I have constantly done that.. usually by quoting the FDA or CDC themselves.. Unlike some around here.....

 

There is nothing valid about this analysis other than that the effectiveness of a vaccine does gradually decrease over time - just like it does for someone who actually contracts COVID and survives. Not all immunity lasts a lifetime.

If our failure to defend against COVID ends up meaning that we have to take a vaccine periodically such as we do for flu, I hardly see that as the worst outcome.

These vaccines have proven to be stupendously safe. There just isn't any valid argument against this solution that can be based on science in any way.

 

Great!

On this thread, I haven't seen you do more than agree with those who don't cite anything.

 

This is hardly the only Covid thread I have participated in...

Perhaps read more....

 

Wow!! As if I'm at all interested in reading all the crappy threads on this or any other forum!!

What I will read is what people cite. And, I do otherwise watch for legit science on various topics.

 

And yet you seem to know my entire post history in this thread.... Make up your ****ing mind...

 

So, you're saying there is nothing valid about my analysis except my basic premise. All else flows from that, as you should know.

 

No, you make YOUR ****ing mind.

You are the one who accused me of not tracking you in other threads.

I just tracked you in THIS thread.

So, THAT is what I stated.

 

Vaccines protect you, not necessarily others, which undercuts the rationale for mandates.

Latest Lancet Study Exposes Limits Of Vaccines At Preventing COVID Infection

"What's more, people who have been vaccinated against COVID can be almost equally as infectious as the unvaccinated..."

 

That is simply not true. "The data clearly shows this" - no, it doesn't. The vaccinated REMAIN less likely to catch the illness, like I've extensively documented with links to studies, in recent posting of mine.

In this discussion, there are links.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/where-is-the-mandate.593186/page-9#post-1073018824

 

Yeah, that's why Israel now requires a booster to keep the Green Pass valid.

As far as actual data, here's the latest from my state:


This, with a 45% fully vaccinated rate.

 

Boosters restore efficacy, sure, which is a good thing, not a bad thing as you imply.

And it sounds like you can't interpret your own data. So, 45% of people are vaccinated... but only 8% of new cases are among the vaccinated. 55% are not, but 92% of new cases are among the unvaccinated. Do I actually need to do the math for you? Can't you really notice that the percentage of new cases among the vaccinated is smaller than the percentage of new cases among the unvaccinated? Can't you noticed that the vaccinated are under-represented among the new cases, and the unvaccinated are over-represented??? Which, by the way, is consistent with ALL studies.

 

I didn't imply that boosters are a bad thing; only that more than a single booster will be required as time goes on.

As for the rest of your post, I have no problem interpreting the data. It's a bit of a red herring, though, as my original post that you responded to is about the mandates and how booster(s) will need to be mandated or else it's just a feel-good, but ultimately futile exercise that is disruptive to employers/employees.

As for "the data", there is no singular data. We do have The Lancet report showing efficacy dropping to 47% after several months. Efficacy is not effectiveness, so the real world number would be different to some degree. Israel is concerned enough, though, to require a booster to keep the Green Pass valid and our own CDC has now listed those eligible for a second booster.

So, it comes back to the mandates. Are they a one-time thing or will they be extended to require periodic boosters to keep your job? As things are adding up, it looks to more likely be the latter.

 

Where do we draw the line? A few short years ago, coerced vaccination was a pretty popular line. Before 911, indefinite detention and putting citizens on terror watch lists was a pretty popular line. If 'public safety' trumps everything, then we don't really have any rights at all.

 

OK, so only federal employees and contractors are being coerced so far. And city employees and contractors of cities that don't allow the test-out option. Do we agree at least that those people that are given the option vaccinate or lose their job are being coerced?

 

Do you not think companies or employers can't set work place rules?

 

What have I said would make you think that? I'm opposed to the govt doing it. Most often, people sign a contract with their employer. I have no problem at all if employers want to add 'must get covid vaccine and stay current with boosters' to the contract. I think employers should be able to add literally anything they want to a contract prior to the prospective employee signing it. The problem I have is when things are required after the fact that the employee never agreed to.

 

COVID VACCINES DON’T WORK WELL ENOUGH TO BE MANDATED

​

Those who deliberately sow division and discord have striven to pit vaxxed against unvaxxed. at its core this is irrational. "If the vaccines work, why do they care? They are protected. But it is actually worse than that: it has become clear that the vaccines offer much less than complete protection. In fact, vaccinated people can easily both catch covid and spread it. This study has just appeared in the Lancet."

 

The mandates make perfect sense if you understand that a nefarious agenda is being advanced by men in power.

They make perfect sense if you understand that nobody in the Biden Administration gives a damn about the US Constitution and rule of law.

They make perfect sense if you understand that this event was planned many years in advance.

 

In the post I responded to.
Where you complained employees of government are coerced. Government are employers.
Company policies change all the time.
Sometimes yearly.

 

So do contracts. Like I said, nothing wrong with changing the contract before it is signed. Changing it afterward is the problem.