Beer Virus V

[Tombs]

Okay. I'm not arguing against the idea that natural immunity might be fairly effective. I was just responding to the question of why isn't anyone studying natural immunity. I'm saying they have studied to an extent and it's difficult to get percentage effectiveness on

Because natural immunity doesn't make anyone money.

 

[nonobaddog]

Because natural immunity doesn't make anyone money.

Maybe they could tax it - then the IRS would have to figure it out.

 

[nonobaddog]

This shows a chart of a bunch of countries and how vaccinated they are.
https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations

 

[nonobaddog]

 

[DadSmith]

MSN

Scientists said it was time to accept that there was no way of stopping the virus spreading through the entire population, and monitoring people with mild symptoms was no longer helpful.

 

[MCgrease08]

MSN

Scientists said it was time to accept that there was no way of stopping the virus spreading through the entire population, and monitoring people with mild symptoms was no longer helpful.

Kind of like what most here have been saying since spring of last year.

Prof Hunter, who advises the World Health Organisation on Covid, also said it was time to change the way the data was collected and recorded as the virus became endemic.

"We need to start moving away from just reporting infections, or just reporting positive cases admitted to hospital, to actually start reporting the number of people who are ill because of Covid," he added. "Otherwise we are going to be frightening ourselves with very high numbers that actually don't translate into disease burden."

 

[rhamersley]

Kind of like what most here have been saying since spring of last year.

Never happen…too much money and power to be gained by reporting “cases”.

 

[printcraft]

These politicians are going to get what they are asking for.

 

[BigRed]

These politicians are going to get what they are asking for.

Only if Liberty still has a few beating hearts there.

 

[jamil]

Maybe they could tax it - then the IRS would have to figure it out.

Oh. They'd figure it out.

 

[NKBJ]

A fascination snapshot of Planet Bankbug.

Trump the populist is losing his base over this one issue that increasingly defines the times

Former president gets booed at one of his own rallies For millions of Americans the definition of ‘fully vaccinated’ is about to change, casting them back into the outer edges of societ…

leohohmann.com

 

[jamil]

Who said I approve of it? I stated I'm all for them being able to prohibit who they wish. If a business doesn't want x patronizing them, I'm all for their ability to disallow them to. Whether I approve of their choice is a different matter.

And just how in the hell is saying a business should be able to prohibit vaccinated or unvaccinated making the vaccinated a protected class?

I support peoples rights, even if I disagree with how they exercise them. Case in point, I support peoples right to open carry. I even do so myself. I even support these jackwads right to do so. I may not agree with how they did it, but that's a different story. I also support the businesses right to say no carry which they did after this.


You and everybody else is free to make the choice you feel is best, whether that is taking the jab or not. I really don't care.

Are you an absolutist on this or is there a line? I think there is a line, and that line is positioned where it becomes collectively a de facto ban on behavior. If a few large companies "own" the public square, for example, in your way, those few companies get to control the most public speech. If all businesses ban unvaccinated people, it effectively becomes a de facto ban on being unvaccinated.

I used to be an opponent of the idea of public accommodation, a business rights absolutist. I think that was an ideologically derived belief, void of thinking of the practicalities of living. I don't think society has the right to impose just any behavior on citizens. I mean, society does this anyway. There are lots of things that it's not socially acceptable to do. When it gets to the point that collectively, businesses effectively remove one's ability to choose what he takes in his body, that crosses the line.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

If all businesses ban unvaccinated people, it effectively becomes a de facto ban on being unvaccinated.

In the Australia thread, I posted that my friend down there said that effectively this is what is happening there, but by the government and not necessarily private businesses. It's in their constitution that the government can't mandate any vaccinations, but they can institute requirements to be able to go out in public (beaches, parks, etc.), go in stores, pubs, etc.. That's what they're using as a defacto mandate on the vaccine (or defacto ban on the unvaccinated). It's obviously underhanded, but as I said in that thread, it's politicians doing what politicians do.

 

[jamil]

A fascination snapshot of Planet Bankbug.

Trump the populist is losing his base over this one issue that increasingly defines the times

Former president gets booed at one of his own rallies For millions of Americans the definition of ‘fully vaccinated’ is about to change, casting them back into the outer edges of societ…

leohohmann.com

********. Trump is not losing his base over the vaccine. I watched that rally in Alabama. They were cheering Trump as loudly at the end of the rally as they were at the beginning. It's not advocating for vaccines that people object to. It's advocating to force people to be vaccinated that would cause the crowd to turn on Trump.

It's the same chorus we see being played out here and elsewhere in conservative circles. You want to be vaccinated, fine. You want to advocate for vaccines, fine. You start deriding me if I don't, or worse, you want to force it on me, well, **** you. Bring it. That's the attitude I see most prevalent among conservatives.

 

[jamil]

In the Australia thread, I posted that my friend down there said that effectively this is what is happening there, but by the government and not necessarily private businesses. It's in their constitution that the government can't mandate any vaccinations, but they can institute requirements to be able to go out in public (beaches, parks, etc.), go in stores, pubs, etc.. That's what they're using as a defacto mandate on the vaccine (or defacto ban on the unvaccinated). It's obviously underhanded, but as I said in that thread, it's politicians doing what politicians do.

But we have people that are business absolutists who insist businesses have a right to collectively prevent people from living how they see fit. And I get that what you're talking about here is government mandating vaccines by getting businesses to forbid public accommodations to unvacinated people. I'd extend this to businesses doing it organically. For example, businesses might collectively adopt such policies for fear of liability rather than just because the government told them to.

 

[jamil]

Okay. I'm not arguing against the idea that natural immunity might be fairly effective. I was just responding to the question of why isn't anyone studying natural immunity. I'm saying they have studied to an extent and it's difficult to get percentage effectiveness on

The studies I've seen seem to suggest that with natural immunity you don't have to catch covid again after 6 months to "boost" immunity, like you do with the vaccine.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Are you an absolutist on this or is there a line? I think there is a line, and that line is positioned where it becomes collectively a de facto ban on behavior. If a few large companies "own" the public square, for example, in your way, those few companies get to control the most public speech. If all businesses ban unvaccinated people, it effectively becomes a de facto ban on being unvaccinated.

I used to be an opponent of the idea of public accommodation, a business rights absolutist. I think that was an ideologically derived belief, void of thinking of the practicalities of living. I don't think society has the right to impose just any behavior on citizens. I mean, society does this anyway. There are lots of things that it's not socially acceptable to do. When it gets to the point that collectively, businesses effectively remove one's ability to choose what he takes in his body, that crosses the line.

Generally absolutist, I can see a "public square" argument for some things such as social media. But that is mainly due to the protections they receive. Internet providers I can see restrictions same as other "public utilities".

 

[jamil]

Generally absolutist, I can see a "public square" argument for some things such as social media. But that is mainly due to the protections they receive. Internet providers I can see restrictions same as other "public utilities".

I hope you don't choke on that absolutist belief. I don't mean that in a snarky way. I think there are some things employers have no say in. What someone a person chooses to put in his body is one of those things. I'm saying I hope that never bites you back. Because the way it's going, there will be only one choice for many people. You either become unemployable, or you get vaccinated. I think that's unacceptable.

And I get that both sides have their fair points. Is it the right of unvaccinated people to put others at risk in the workplace? And, if the vaccine would have prevented an illness otherwise covered by company provided insurance, should they be obligated to cover it? But I'll tell you what. That would be a great law suit, if it could ever make it to court.

It is a clear right of people to decide what to put in their bodies. Employers need to figure out how to work around that as it becomes a collective mandate.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I hope you don't choke on that absolutist belief. I don't mean that in a snarky way. I think there are some things employers have no say in. What someone a person chooses to put in his body is one of those things. I'm saying I hope that never bites you back. Because the way it's going, there will be only one choice for many people. You either become unemployable, or you get vaccinated. I think that's unacceptable.

I hope I don't either, but employers have been saying what an employee can put in their body for a long time. Including legal substances off the clock. I know one large company that has a nicotine ban, yes it's part of the random drug test. Test positive for nicotine and termination/no hire. Well I think they will hire, but retest after a certain period. If fail the retest, fired. I know another large company that salaried personnel cannot buy/give alcohol to an hourly employee.

The nicotine ban is for a couple of reasons according to the company, insurance costs and lost time due to illnesses are two of them. I could see the same argument made for requiring the vaccine.

I'm not saying I agree with it, just that IMO it's within their rights.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I hope I don't either, but employers have been saying what an employee can put in their body for a long time. Including legal substances off the clock. I know one large company that has a nicotine ban, yes it's part of the random drug test. Test positive for nicotine and termination/no hire. Well I think they will hire, but retest after a certain period. If fail the retest, fired. I know another large company that salaried personnel cannot buy/give alcohol to an hourly employee.

The nicotine ban is for a couple of reasons according to the company, insurance costs and lost time due to illnesses are two of them. I could see the same argument made for requiring the vaccine.

I'm not saying I agree with it, just that IMO it's within their rights.

Women getting pregnant account for a lot of missed work. The FMLA laws resulted from that. Would you agree that a company should be able to force its female employees to be on birth control?