Less of course those who are allergic etc.
Sure. But not only that they should be murdered by vaccinated people in an annual event similar to “the purge.”
How about those of us who have natural immunity because we’ve recovered from covid? Why should we expose ourselves to the increased risk of getting a vaccine which has killed people and left others with neurological disorders, perhaps permanently? In a just and sane world, we’d get an insurance discount for avoiding it.
And why do filthy politicians divide us all into only two groups: “vaccinated” and “unvaccinated”? People with natural immunity that haven’t been foolish enough to get vaccinated should be a separate group.
Also, since the vaccines are dangerous and haven’t been tested long enough to reveal if they will cause any long-term problems or not, it’s very wise to hold off, even if you don’t have natural immunity, and just plan on taking ivermectin if you show symptoms of any virus.
Politicians and admin doctors who’re in the pocket of big pharma (Democrats for sure, but probably some Republicans too) are surely preventing ivermectin from being approved for treating covid and thus ending the pandemic in a couple weeks.
I’m not clear that that’s the case. There have been cases of people being reinfected.
There have, but I believe it to be exceedingly rare at this point. More rare than the vaccinated getting a mild case currently.
@KenJackson, I’m open to the idea of using natural immunity, but the trouble is you still have to be able to prove it. An antigen test is the best bet, but to my understanding you only have a few months after infection where they’re still detectable.
To answer the question of the thread as a whole: I have to say no. Not because it sounds like a bad idea necessarily, but in the name of achieving affordable, quality, universal healthcare I don’t think we can allow for discrepancies like that.
And there also the angle that the government is encouraging over reporting to keep the crisis going. It sounds far fetched, but there are doctors who claim this thing is overblown. My wife’s cousins are refusing to take the vaccine because their doctor claims that many people with the sniffles are getting reported as having Covid.
We do know that a fair number of the Covid deaths the first time around had other underlying causes that might well have been the primary cause. There were officials in the government who wanted to pump up the Covid death statistics, especially when Trump was in office.
Let’s admit it. The Covid virus has been the best campaign worker the Democrat Party has had for the past year and a half. Keeping the perception alive that this is the worst pandemic since the Black Death works very much to the advantage of the Democrats.
Unfortunately you can’t trust much of anything the Democrat aligned news media reports these days. Democrat news media doesn’t even both bother was a show that they are politically objective. They have become the American version of Provda.
Prove it? Why? You seem to be implying an authoritarian government should be in charge. No. The best practice is to leave the health of the individual totally up to the individual. Government can advocate and encourage people to get vaccinated, but it’s not the damned government’s business what or why the individual chooses.
Prove it to the insurance companies. For the hypothetical of this thread.
Well on that note Gene. Everyone with any sort of health insurance should have to prove that they’re not obese. They should have to prove to the insurance companies that they eat healthy and take care of themselves and aren’t bobsledding towards heart failure. Their health insurance should be dramatically higher than everyone else to reflect the simple reality of taking the risk to insure them. Maybe this is already a thing? Not sure. I doubt it.
Because 9 times out of 10 people not getting vaxxed are choosing to. And 9 times out of 10 severely overweight people are choosing to be that. But I guess in the few cases that they aren’t choosing it they’ll just slightly reduce the extra money you have to pay sounds fair.
Seriously, you could choose a LOT more issues to bill people extra money for than a covid vaccine. When they mandate this it will just be a politically correct cash grab.
Again, I’m not personally in favor of the hypothetical. But if price differences were to be derived from vaccination/natural immunity status, you’d have to prove it in some way.
Well. There are thousands of things insurance can bill people on that are a helluva lot more important to their longevity than a covid vaccine. For instance; the regular flu, heart disease, traffic accidents, swimming pool accidents, suicide, and maybe watching that new white house vax video. All of these would save the insurance industry significantly more money when billed correctly. If they want to mandate vaccines for literally every virus that can kill you - if you don’t want to pay sky high insurance - then I would understand.
When you can show me that the covid vax works as good as the ebola vax then I’ll pay your fines.
and oh? wow? the ebola vax is currently experimental wouldn’t you know
Cool, make a thread about it.
Why don’t you make a thread about it.
What happened to the “no pre-existing conditions” mantra and the constitutional right to privacy as justifying abortion decisions to be made by woman and her doctor?
Where do you draw the line with respect to choices? I mean, if a person were to randomly get sick, that would be one thing. But people carry viruses and spread them to others and though no fault of their own they can become I’ll and die. So a person who chooses not to get vaccinated can affect the lives of others.
Should you be forced to wear clothes? Is that a choice?
What about morals? If everything is a choice, why does the Christian right, by and large concern itself about the choices that people make?
Drugs, sexuality, pedophilia, pre-marital sex, and adultery…
I mean, how do you square that circle?
I’m curious, where do you draw the line and how does the choice to get vaccinated stay on the “choice” side of the line?
the only things in there that concerns me is pedophilia. I draw the line at that because I believe it affects people other than yourself more than it does yourself. I believe the Christian right concerns itself with these things because they follow the tenets of a certain book, and by promoting behavior against the tenets of that book you’re endangering the faith of their children, and in the minds of some, going against the teachings of that book doesn’t help anyone.
If I have no choice but to get vaccinated for the good of the human race, then there are lot of people out there who need to get vasectomies and tubes tied, for the good of the human race. In fact, I believe government enforced vasectomies would greatly benefit the world MUCH more than vaccines that don’t work. Please change my mind.
Make them wear something like the jewish star of david. And take their property. Just like they did Christians during hte time of the Roman persecutions of Christians. Use the unvaxxed as human torches so that society can save on electricity.
Would that make you happy?
Have you ever met a logical fallacy you didn’t employ?
Do you think we need laws about this? Or even subtle enforcement like insurance rate discrimination? Can’t we just have the government be totally honest (something they’re not doing now) and make an appeal for certain behaviors based on logic and truthful science? (Like telling the truth about ivermectin?)
I used to think speed limits were an inconvenient necessity to save lives. Isn’t that what you think? But then I visited Villa Gesell, Argentina, a resort town with no speed limits, no traffic lights, very few street signs, no visible police force. I think the population was something 25,000.
At first I was alarmed at what I assumed would be lawlessness on the road. I assumed there would be lots of wrecks. But as I walked around town looking for wrecks, I noticed there were a lot of nice cars and no dents and no broken taillights that I could find. Then the thought occurred to me, people who own a car really don’t want to be in a wreck, so they drive in a way that prevents one.
I’m now convinced that speed limits are unnecessary. Oddly, I haven’t seen my local police setup to make a traffic stop in several years, so maybe they’ve seen the light too.
As for masks and vaccines, I think people will do what’s best for themselves. We don’t need to protect them against their will. And often the people know better than the government anyway.
“Governments” aren’t honest or dishonest, people are, thus what you are really asking is can’t we just have honest people in the government?
All of them? No. I hate to be the cynic here, but as long as people are attracted to money and power and there is a means within the system to earn them, then some people will be dishonest. That said, most people who work for the government are honest, but Congress, where a person without a high school diploma, who has a criminal record and might even be in jail, can get elected to a position where they are paid $175,000, get a very large stipend, have a large staff that serves them and get at least two offices.
Now, what do you suppose a member of the House, who before getting elected was working waiting tables or a fitness buff, would be willing to do to keep all of the perks that came with a job like that?
Be dishonest maybe?
I dunno, can we?
Ok, but what works in one country won’t necessarily work in the next. I mean, the issue isn’t laws but culture. I’m not saying that you are wrong in this case (if we’re using your example as a stand-in for lots of possibilities.
You and I both know that in a culture where teens are given sports cars with 300hp or more, then yes, this nation without speed limits would be problematic, because of our culture.
How many teens in Argentina do you think own Mustangs? Really not a good example, but that said, I’ll take your point as there are probably some unnecessary laws in the US. I could be convinced on this point in some cases.
Should people have to wear clothes? Should that be a law? You never answered that.
Except when people do what’s best for them and spread the virus to others, some of which will die.
So you think a person should be free to spread the virus? If an infected person with HIV had sex with a person who wasn’t infected, do you think they should be required to tell their partner?
As far as knowing better than government, some might, but given how lucrative it can be to mislead people, I disagree. Further, much of what comes from the government is based on science. It’s the media and politicians, who are incentivized to twist the truth for money and power that cause the problem.