How Many Would Favor Real Vaccine Mandates?

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 338]

I'm taking about real mandates here.  Get vaccinated or pay a fine/go to jail.  Maybe like when a journalist won't reveal sources in a legal case and they go to jail until they do.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

[AU9377 4,925]

People can choose, but society, not by laws but by old fashion peer pressure, should make it unacceptable to refuse a perfectly good vaccine.  The evidence is overwhelming that the vaccines are both safe and effective.  Don't give me that BS about myocarditis and other red herrings.  The truth is that the occurrence of myocarditis in people that have had Covid is much much much greater than any rare and  temporary side effect of the vaccine.

Edited October 16, 2021 by AU9377

[bigbird 60,500]

3 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

People can choose, but society, not by laws but by old fashion peer pressure, should make it unacceptable to refuse a perfectly good vaccine.  The evidence is overwhelming that the vaccines are both safe and effective.  Don't give me that BS about myocarditis and other red herrings.  The truth is that the occurrence of myocarditis in people that have had Covid is much much much greater than any rare and  temporary side effect of the vaccine.

Advocating the bullying of a certain group until they fold to the other's historically hasn't worked out too well.

[AU9377 4,925]

4 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Advocating the bullying of a certain group until they fold to the other's historically hasn't worked out too well.

It isn't bullying when one group is costing lives and filling hospital beds.  That hurts everyone and it could be mediated if that group would do the right thing.

[bigbird 60,500]

18 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

It isn't bullying when one group is costing lives and filling hospital beds.  That hurts everyone and it could be mediated if that group would do the right thing.

Yes, it is.  The reasoning doesn't negate the action. You don't like their choice so you proposed forcing them to through peer pressure.  

I'm vaccinated, all my family is (except my son), that doesn't mean I think I should force my decision on anyone else.

[AU9377 4,925]

18 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Yes, it is.  The reasoning doesn't negate the action. You don't like their choice so you proposed forcing them to through peer pressure.  

I'm vaccinated, all my family is (except my son), that doesn't mean I think I should force my decision on anyone else.

That isn't forcing.  That is not accepting a poor choice.  People have choices every day.  Someone can choose to smoke, but am I going to pretend it is just a regular run of the mill choice like what pair of socks to wear?  No.  That doesn't mean that I won't associate with them or that I don't care about them.  To the contrary, I do care about them, which is why I will point out their poor choice.

We know that smoking long term will lead to COPD and a reduced life span.  We know that being vaccinated will decrease greatly the chance that someone will be seriously ill or hospitalized with Covid. 

Employers have every right to expect their workers to take steps to ensure that they are available to work and not home sick.  Therefore, an employer has every right to require vaccinations.

Edited October 16, 2021 by AU9377

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 338]

9 hours ago, AU9377 said:

People can choose, but society, not by laws but by old fashion peer pressure, should make it unacceptable to refuse a perfectly good vaccine.  The evidence is overwhelming that the vaccines are both safe and effective.  Don't give me that BS about myocarditis and other red herrings.  The truth is that the occurrence of myocarditis in people that have had Covid is much much much greater than any rare and  temporary side effect of the vaccine.

If you really think that people not being vaccinated endangers others—as in, this person over here could die because this person over here wouldn't get vaccinated—how does that situation not warrant something more than peer pressure?  (You may not have said that here, but others have).

I can't think of another circumstance in which we rely on nothing more than peer pressure to deal with a potentially life-threatening situation.

Yet no one has voted for that option above.  Kind of makes me wonder whether people here really believe that not getting vaccinated is really as dangerous to others as they say it is.

[TexasTiger 12,831]

Jail? Of course not. But we’ve had vaccine mandates for school and college and the military for years. 

[DKW 86 7,419]

5 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Jail? Of course not. But we’ve had vaccine mandates for school and college and the military for years. 

Ditto, Add in businesses and maybe even for health insurance companies and you are closing in on my feelings...

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 338]

6 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Jail? Of course not. But we’ve had vaccine mandates for school and college and the military for years. 

The military yes, schools and colleges had exemptions that pretty much anyone could exercise with the exception of a small handful of states.

But as others have pointed out, those are not true mandates, they are conditions for certain circumstances.  You could choose to not join the military or choose to homeschool.

[TexasTiger 12,831]

20 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

The military yes, schools and colleges had exemptions that pretty much anyone could exercise with the exception of a small handful of states.

But as others have pointed out, those are not true mandates, they are conditions for certain circumstances.  You could choose to not join the military or choose to homeschool.

Where are the “true mandates” now?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

On 10/14/2021 at 6:11 AM, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

I'm taking about real mandates here.  Get vaccinated or pay a fine/go to jail.  Maybe like when a journalist won't reveal sources in a legal case and they go to jail until they do.

This is a strawman version of a vaccine mandate. We’ve never jailed anyone or even fined them for not getting them. The most that has been done is that some jobs or schools require them and you can’t be employed or go to that school without getting them. And yes, I’m in favor of them, particularly when a pandemic is creating unnecessary and extreme strain on our healthcare system and workers. 

[SaturdayGT 719]

I wonder how people who support vaccines and mask mandates...how do you feel about alcohol, cigarettes, people who don't wear sunscreen etc....I feel like there's a certain divide between the pissy busy bodies here and the whatever types in regards to it all...

 

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 338]

22 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Where are the “true mandates” now?

There aren't any.  Thus the entire question.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 338]

21 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

This is a strawman version of a vaccine mandate. We’ve never jailed anyone or even fined them for not getting them. The most that has been done is that some jobs or schools require them and you can’t be employed or go to that school without getting them. And yes, I’m in favor of them, particularly when a pandemic is creating unnecessary and extreme strain on our healthcare system and workers. 

No, it's a hypothetical.  That they don't currently exist is the point.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

2 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

No, it's a hypothetical.  That they don't currently exist is the point.

Hypothetical?  I'll say.  They've never existed on any vaccine in history.  Probably better categorized as apocalyptic fantasy.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 338]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

Hypothetical?  I'll say.  They've never existed on any vaccine in history.  Probably better categorized as apocalyptic fantasy.

You didn't understand the post.  That's not my fault and being aggressive about it doesn't cover your mistake.

If not being vaccinated is as dangerous to other people as many (including many here say), what's the logical reasoning for this being a "fantasy?"  I can't think of any other thing that people are not punished by law for doing that is as dangerous to others as people say this is.  So why is this one thing laughable, but, say, driving without having proven competence in the form of getting a license taken for granted?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

8 hours ago, SaturdayGT said:

I wonder how people who support vaccines and mask mandates...how do you feel about alcohol, cigarettes, people who don't wear sunscreen etc....I feel like there's a certain divide between the pissy busy bodies here and the whatever types in regards to it all...

If alcohol, cigarettes, or lack of sunscreen ever start filling up our ICU beds all at once or somehow their effects become infectious diseases that easily spread to us all, maybe we can talk about it.  One can have a general stance of letting people make poor health choices but recognize that certain situations (like a pandemic) mean that you can have a stronger, more preventative and interventionist response.  This is part of the problem I have with political ideologies - sometimes they prevent people from just making the wisest decisions about the problem they are facing in the moment.  

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Just now, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

You didn't understand the post.  That's not my fault and being aggressive about it doesn't cover your mistake.

If not being vaccinated is as dangerous to other people as many (including many here say), what's the logical reasoning for this being a "fantasy?"

Because these decisions are always trying to strike a balance between carrot and stick - between "personal freedom" and responsibility and public safety.  A lot of people die in car accidents each year - both those who drive them and those who are merely collateral damage like pedestrians, bicyclists, etc.  We could - following the logic of your fantasy hypothetical - simply outlaw cars.  That would cut down on tens of thousands of deaths and millions of injuries each year.  But that's probably not the best balance of risk, freedom, and safety.  So we make laws governing the use of motor vehicles - you have to be licensed.  We have appropriate speed limits and traffic laws.  We require certain safety standards on vehicles allowed on the roads.  We require seatbelts to be worn.  It's not an all or nothing proposition.  

Neither is this.  We are and have been trying to encourage people to get vaccinated.  We've tried to show the benefits and the data on that.  We've tried to point to a day where this virus and its effects can be reduced to acceptable levels of risk and not a major problem.  But too many people want to believe garbage they read on the internet and their dumb friends who fell asleep during high school biology and don't understand  beans about how vaccines or viruses work and the pandemic has dragged on.  We should be well past 80% vaccination rates in this country and moving on to vaccinating the rest of the world but for these dimwits.  So the stick approach is starting to be used.  Many concerts, sporting events and other large gatherings are requiring vaccines or a very recent negative test.  Most of the pro sports leagues are requiring players and coaches be vaccinated or face a host of hoops to jump through in terms of daily or very frequent testing, longer quarantine times for the unvaccinated if they are exposed or test positive, consequences for their teams if they can't play a game because of this.  And now some employers are requiring it.

And I don't have a problem with that.  If this decision only affected the person choosing bull**** over facts, I wouldn't give it a second thought other than to think how dumb they were.  But it affects everyone and not just our health.  It's affecting our economy and people's livelihoods.  

We aren't in fantasyland because of these kinds of considerations - because in the real world we're always trying to balance several competing factors to come up with the best and wisest way forward, not jumping to the extremes like so many on both end of the political spectrum seem to want to camp out in these days.

 

 

[homersapien 11,366]

12 hours ago, SaturdayGT said:

I wonder how people who support vaccines and mask mandates...how do you feel about alcohol, cigarettes, people who don't wear sunscreen etc....I feel like there's a certain divide between the pissy busy bodies here and the whatever types in regards to it all...

 

You really don't see the difference?

[homersapien 11,366]

4 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

No, it's a hypothetical.  That they don't currently exist is the point.

Perhaps you should re-word your poll.

You apparently meant something you didn't really ask.

[homersapien 11,366]

4 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

You didn't understand the post.  That's not my fault and being aggressive about it doesn't cover your mistake.

 

What a pompous thing to say.  And sooooo ironic coming from the master of disingenuous interpretation.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 338]

10 hours ago, homersapien said:

What a pompous thing to say.  And sooooo ironic coming from the master of disingenuous interpretation.

LOL.

 

I already told you that you need to try to find another bickering partner.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 338]

13 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Because these decisions are always trying to strike a balance between carrot and stick - between "personal freedom" and responsibility and public safety.  A lot of people die in car accidents each year - both those who drive them and those who are merely collateral damage like pedestrians, bicyclists, etc.  We could - following the logic of your fantasy hypothetical - simply outlaw cars.  That would cut down on tens of thousands of deaths and millions of injuries each year.  But that's probably not the best balance of risk, freedom, and safety.  So we make laws governing the use of motor vehicles - you have to be licensed.  We have appropriate speed limits and traffic laws.  We require certain safety standards on vehicles allowed on the roads.  We require seatbelts to be worn.  It's not an all or nothing proposition.  

Neither is this.  We are and have been trying to encourage people to get vaccinated.  We've tried to show the benefits and the data on that.  We've tried to point to a day where this virus and its effects can be reduced to acceptable levels of risk and not a major problem.  But too many people want to believe garbage they read on the internet and their dumb friends who fell asleep during high school biology and don't understand  beans about how vaccines or viruses work and the pandemic has dragged on.  We should be well past 80% vaccination rates in this country and moving on to vaccinating the rest of the world but for these dimwits.  So the stick approach is starting to be used.  Many concerts, sporting events and other large gatherings are requiring vaccines or a very recent negative test.  Most of the pro sports leagues are requiring players and coaches be vaccinated or face a host of hoops to jump through in terms of daily or very frequent testing, longer quarantine times for the unvaccinated if they are exposed or test positive, consequences for their teams if they can't play a game because of this.  And now some employers are requiring it.

And I don't have a problem with that.  If this decision only affected the person choosing bull**** over facts, I wouldn't give it a second thought other than to think how dumb they were.  But it affects everyone and not just our health.  It's affecting our economy and people's livelihoods.  

We aren't in fantasyland because of these kinds of considerations - because in the real world we're always trying to balance several competing factors to come up with the best and wisest way forward, not jumping to the extremes like so many on both end of the political spectrum seem to want to camp out in these days.

 

 

That was a lot of words to attach to a false dilemma.

To use your false dilemma example, we don't outlaw cars to save lives because we derive so much benefit from driving cars.  Actual, tangible benefit.  (Not to mention, the choice wasn't to drive cars or ban them, it was that we require a license to make sure people who do drive are reasonably safe behind the wheel.)

What tangible benefit is there for people to not get vaccinated?  Unless you believe that the vaccination is actually dangerous.

On one side of the ledger you have named health threats and damage to the entire economy of the country and individual's livelihoods.  What exactly is on the other side of the ledger to balance it out?

Freedom?  The standard for freedom in our country (up until abortion became legal, anyway) has always been that one individual's freedom stops when it infringes upon others' right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Either the vaccine is more dangerous than rabid pro-vaxxers will admit or the danger of not being vaccinated to others is not as great, or both.

If not, name another circumstance (an actual circumstance, not a hyperbolic straw man false dilemma) in which society tolerates a significant threat to others that could be prevented with almost no cost or threat to the party posing the danger.  I can't think of one.