The NBA’s Anti-Vaxxers Are Trying to Push Around the League—And It’s Working

[Peoriabird]

12 minutes ago, Diesel said:

3.  Unvax will hold on to Virus LONGER than Breakthrough cases.   (TIME). - This effects how many more people will be infected. 

 

This may be the case but it offers little guarantees that you are going to encounter the person at the right time.  So to me both are potentially as infectious and mandate should be the same for all

[macdaddy]

1 minute ago, JeffS17 said:

The vaccine helps in a multitude of ways

To me I just don't know what more needs to be said.   This is undeniable and why people would not want to do everything we can in the face of a pandemic disease i don't know. 

[Diesel]

3 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

This may be the case but it offers little guarantees that you are going to encounter the person at the right time.  So to me both are potentially as infectious and mandate should be the same for all

B.S. 

If there's a 12% chance for a breakthrough case... and of that... if the breakthrough case has the virus for less time than a unvax....  The likelihood of getting the virus from an unvax becomes greater simply by time and percent.   The fringe truths that you are telling are killing the possibility of herd immunization because you become a voice to influence the unvax to stay unvax with this BS you're spreading. 

But like I said before.  There is some set critical mass.  and when it's hit.. .the government is going to mandate that everybody gets vaccinated.   

 

[Peoriabird]

5 minutes ago, Diesel said:

B.S. 

If there's a 12% chance for a breakthrough case... and of that... if the breakthrough case has the virus for less time than a unvax....  The likelihood of getting the virus from an unvax becomes greater simply by time and percent.   The fringe truths that you are telling are killing the possibility of herd immunization because you become a voice to influence the unvax to stay unvax with this BS you're spreading. 

But like I said before.  There is some set critical mass.  and when it's hit.. .the government is going to mandate that everybody gets vaccinated.   

 

OK believe what you want to believe.  But it is the CDC's position, Dr, Fauci's position as well as Dr. Gupta's position that you should still socially distance and wear mask even when fully vaccinated.

[Diesel]

11 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

To me I just don't know what more needs to be said.   This is undeniable and why people would not want to do everything we can in the face of a pandemic disease i don't know. 

Most of it is people who think that their freedoms are being taken away. 

They have bought into the idea that they live in a free society. 

BS.

I've never heard them say anything about Freedoms when it comes to the MMR vaccine.  The Polio Vaccine. 

I've never heard them say anything about Freedoms when it comes to getting checked at the airport.   Getting checked before going into federal buildings. 

I've never heard them say a word about their Freedoms and what goes into their bodies when talking about the fluorine and calcium that has been put in their drinking water.  Even the bottled water. 

I've never heard vegans or farmers complain about what's in the seed that developed the vegetable that they eat.  Nobody is made to disclose that information.  Hello Monsanto. 

I've never heard a vigorous argument about the fact that income tax is taken out of their earnings before they even see it (for most people). 

It just becomes a soapbox for people who think that they have freedoms  to play a dangerous game with life and death. 

 

 

[Diesel]

1 minute ago, Peoriabird said:

OK believe what you want to believe.  But it is the CDC's position, Dr, Fauci's position as well as Dr. Gupta's position that you should still socially distance and wear mask even when fully vaccinated.

Firstly, I don't believe Dr. Fauci.. but that's another story. 

However, I do agree with social distancing and wearing a mask.  There's no contradiction in those things and what I have said.   

 

[thecampster]

18 minutes ago, Diesel said:

B.S. 

If there's a 12% chance for a breakthrough case... and of that... if the breakthrough case has the virus for less time than a unvax....  The likelihood of getting the virus from an unvax becomes greater simply by time and percent.   The fringe truths that you are telling are killing the possibility of herd immunization because you become a voice to influence the unvax to stay unvax with this BS you're spreading. 

But like I said before.  There is some set critical mass.  and when it's hit.. .the government is going to mandate that everybody gets vaccinated.   

 

I just don't know what to do with this. How to explain this.

Vaccinations are conditionally mandated right now but its conditional. For example, in order for your child to attend public school or go to any daycare  under state's authority.  But it is not mandated that children are vaccinated.  This is how government was able to get away with it.  Its when you enter the private space that things get dicey.

Diesel, government is the elected officials of your neighbors. A law, government mandate, regulation are all just your neighbors telling you how to drive, how tall your grass can be and what happens when you commit a crime. The problem with regulations/mandates are that they typically haven't gone through the legislative process. In order for it to become law, you need 218 Representatives, effectively 60 Senators and the President to all stick their necks out and take the plunge to legislate something.  In most cases, presidential mandates are struck down when something falls outside of the President's authority from Congress. When you say something like the above, what you are saying is that 279 of your elected folks are going to hedge their bet that the voters won't retaliate at the ballot box.  

Studies have shown that the majority of the country is pro vaxx but anti mandate.  If Congress (lets not make this left or right because its not) was to actually give the president the power to enforce a vaccine mandate by President Order or vote it into law themselves, at least a third of those voting for it would lose their seat at the first opportunity. People do not like being told what to do and especially with their own bodies. Its 100% unrealistic what you're saying. That's not how things work.

The real question right now is whether or not that authority already lies with Biden. Is this enough of a crisis that his existing emergency powers would authorize his mandating this. I would state not but I've been wrong before (3 times actually...no wait...4). You can't just make sweeping statement like "the Government will". Those jokers are in it for whatever works for them. They will read the tea leaves first and the tea leaves say people are okay with the vaccine but not okay with forced vaccinations.

Edited September 27, 2021 by thecampster

[Diesel]

51 minutes ago, thecampster said:

I just don't know what to do with this. How to explain this.

Vaccinations are conditionally mandated right now but its conditional. For example, in order for your child to attend public school or go to any daycare  under state's authority.  But it is not mandated that children are vaccinated.  This is how government was able to get away with it.  Its when you enter the private space that things get dicey.

Diesel, government is the elected officials of your neighbors. A law, government mandate, regulation are all just your neighbors telling you how to drive, how tall your grass can be and what happens when you commit a crime. The problem with regulations/mandates are that they typically haven't gone through the legislative process. In order for it to become law, you need 218 Representatives, effectively 60 Senators and the President to all stick their necks out and take the plunge to legislate something.  In most cases, presidential mandates are struck down when something falls outside of the President's authority from Congress. When you say something like the above, what you are saying is that 279 of your elected folks are going to hedge their bet that the voters won't retaliate at the ballot box.  

Studies have shown that the majority of the country is pro vaxx but anti mandate.  If Congress (lets not make this left or right because its not) was to actually give the president the power to enforce a vaccine mandate by President Order or vote it into law themselves, at least a third of those voting for it would lose their seat at the first opportunity. People do not like being told what to do and especially with their own bodies. Its 100% unrealistic what you're saying. That's not how things work.

The real question right now is whether or not that authority already lies with Biden. Is this enough of a crisis that his existing emergency powers would authorize his mandating this. I would state not but I've been wrong before (3 times actually...no wait...4). You can't just make sweeping statement like "the Government will". Those jokers are in it for whatever works for them. They will read the tea leaves first and the tea leaves say people are okay with the vaccine but not okay with forced vaccinations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts

 

Quote

The Court's decision articulated the view that individual liberty is not absolute and is subject to the police power of the state.

 

[JeffS17]

@Peoriabird I encourage you to read this article as it clearly explains and refutes what you keep parroting here about vaccinated individuals spreading the virus just as much as unvaccinated.  Dr. Fauci has confirmed you can spread the virus as a vaccinated person, but he did NOT comment on the likelihood of that event happening with a vaccinated v unvaccinated individual.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/the-vaccinated-arent-just-as-likely-to-spread-covid/620161/

[thecampster]

21 minutes ago, Diesel said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts

 

 

I'm not sure that means what you think it means. We're still talking Smallpox, with a lethality rate of up to 30% depending on the strain. 

Its based on my favorite premise. My rights end where yours begin.  The right to life trumps liberty which trumps the pursuit of happiness. If my right (liberty) is up against your right (life), life wins. If my liberty is up against your general pursuit of happiness, liberty wins. You can predict pretty much every rights case against that model.  In the case of Smallpox, it was absolutely a threat to persons and country for you to not be vaccinated. We aren't there yet with COVID and so its liberty (freedom of movement, equal right to work, control of your own body/property) vs your ability to go to the movies without a mask on (pursuit of happiness).

Can you die from COVID, yes, will you die from COVID, undetermined. 

 

But get out of that mindset for a minute. Stop thinking of the government as the end power in the country. Its not. Its not the military, its not the police. Its thought systems. Think of how movements shut down major cities last year, how governments cowered in the face of angry protestors on Jan 6.  The power does and always will rest in the hand of the angry masses. Your proclamations move us toward more angry masses where one of them will do something stupid. Win this fight with compassion and reason. 

As someone who rehabs dogs, let me tell you, it is never a good idea to corner a confused, scared dog.  Sit on the stairs near him and toss him chunks of cheeseburgers. Pet him when he says its okay and soon he'll be on the leash walking happily with you (new video upload coming, check in the lounge). Get off that mandate concept and stop being the guy on the internet refusing to say "I might have overstepped".

[Diesel]

22 minutes ago, thecampster said:

I'm not sure that means what you think it means. We're still talking Smallpox, with a lethality rate of up to 30% depending on the strain. 

Its based on my favorite premise. My rights end where yours begin.  The right to life trumps liberty which trumps the pursuit of happiness. If my right (liberty) is up against your right (life), life wins. If my liberty is up against your general pursuit of happiness, liberty wins. You can predict pretty much every rights case against that model.  In the case of Smallpox, it was absolutely a threat to persons and country for you to not be vaccinated. We aren't there yet with COVID and so its liberty (freedom of movement, equal right to work, control of your own body/property) vs your ability to go to the movies without a mask on (pursuit of happiness).

Can you die from COVID, yes, will you die from COVID, undetermined. 

 

But get out of that mindset for a minute. Stop thinking of the government as the end power in the country. Its not. Its not the military, its not the police. Its thought systems. Think of how movements shut down major cities last year, how governments cowered in the face of angry protestors on Jan 6.  The power does and always will rest in the hand of the angry masses. Your proclamations move us toward more angry masses where one of them will do something stupid. Win this fight with compassion and reason. 

As someone who rehabs dogs, let me tell you, it is never a good idea to corner a confused, scared dog.  Sit on the stairs near him and toss him chunks of cheeseburgers. Pet him when he says its okay and soon he'll be on the leash walking happily with you (new video upload coming, check in the lounge). Get off that mandate concept and stop being the guy on the internet refusing to say "I might have overstepped".

No... What I get is that public safety trumps  personal liberties. 

Quote

Jacobson also has been a precedent case in justifying government face mask orders and stay-at-home orders throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.^[10][11]

Jacobsen is not some draconian case that is rarely used. 

Jacobsen is used a lot and when this virus hits critical mass, it will be used again.  Because one of the main functions of Government is to "provide for the common defense".    

 

Read the wording here:

Quote

The Court held that "in every well ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand" and that "[r]eal liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own [liberty], whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others."[2]

Your individual liberties does not trump public safety.  

[JeffS17]

22 minutes ago, thecampster said:

I'm not sure that means what you think it means. We're still talking Smallpox, with a lethality rate of up to 30% depending on the strain. 

Its based on my favorite premise. My rights end where yours begin.  The right to life trumps liberty which trumps the pursuit of happiness. If my right (liberty) is up against your right (life), life wins. If my liberty is up against your general pursuit of happiness, liberty wins. You can predict pretty much every rights case against that model.  In the case of Smallpox, it was absolutely a threat to persons and country for you to not be vaccinated. We aren't there yet with COVID and so its liberty (freedom of movement, equal right to work, control of your own body/property) vs your ability to go to the movies without a mask on (pursuit of happiness).

Can you die from COVID, yes, will you die from COVID, undetermined. 

 

But get out of that mindset for a minute. Stop thinking of the government as the end power in the country. Its not. Its not the military, its not the police. Its thought systems. Think of how movements shut down major cities last year, how governments cowered in the face of angry protestors on Jan 6.  The power does and always will rest in the hand of the angry masses. Your proclamations move us toward more angry masses where one of them will do something stupid. Win this fight with compassion and reason. 

As someone who rehabs dogs, let me tell you, it is never a good idea to corner a confused, scared dog.  Sit on the stairs near him and toss him chunks of cheeseburgers. Pet him when he says its okay and soon he'll be on the leash walking happily with you (new video upload coming, check in the lounge). Get off that mandate concept and stop being the guy on the internet refusing to say "I might have overstepped".

I think what you're saying makes sense but everyone draws the line in a different place.  You might be okay with 1% of the population dying off but that doesn't mean everyone shares your opinion.  If the virus had a 100% death rate, obviously everyone would take it quite seriously.  If it was a 0% death rate, no one would care.  I personally think ~1% is an absolutely huge number and warrants a mandate.  I also believe that people are actually pretty awful at knowing what they want and what will make them happy.  I guarantee you that every single person who knows a family member, friend, coworker, spouse, parent, in-law, or any other person close to them that has died of Covid-19 would be O.K. with a vaccine mandate.  Did all of them have the foresight to know how they felt ahead of time? When the virus hadn't directly impacted them yet?  No, absolutely not.  That's why thousands of people are in hospitals right now on their deathbeds, begging to be vaccinated, only to learn it's too late.  The entire reason we have a CDC and medical professionals are to make good public health decisions for us.  They are there for the people.  This is also why the government has to mandate motorcycle helmets and seatbelts, and they have to enforce speed limits, and regulate the food industry.

The amount of proud ignorance in this country as at an all-time high.  People are out here begging for the freedom to die absolutely horrible, painful, suffocating deaths on a ventilator.  It's asinine to me and I genuinely cannot comprehend it.  

[swanlee]

If vaccines are mandated it will be because a loud minority are trying to rile things up with their anti science BS grifting and crap agenda. Sadly their are enough of these nut jobs around for covid to bounce around creating new strains that may end up vaccine resistant.

If we are in this same boat next year and we have 30% or more people refusing the vaccine and we see new strains causing more lock downs its time to mandate it for the long term good of society.

Right now the anti vaxxers should be put in the spotlight as they are the reason we are still in this mess.

Science comes in record time with nearly a dozen safe vaccines to end the pandemic and these a holes sit around crying like babies causing new strains and a lot more deaths.

Id have no problem letting them die of stupidity if it didnt mean innocent were also dying due to their dumb ass decisions.

 

Edited September 27, 2021 by swanlee

[marco102]

Bro what? 

 

[RandomFan]

Nevermind

Edited September 27, 2021 by RandomFan

[thecampster]

1 hour ago, JeffS17 said:

I think what you're saying makes sense but everyone draws the line in a different place.  You might be okay with 1% of the population dying off but that doesn't mean everyone shares your opinion.  If the virus had a 100% death rate, obviously everyone would take it quite seriously.  If it was a 0% death rate, no one would care.  I personally think ~1% is an absolutely huge number and warrants a mandate.  I also believe that people are actually pretty awful at knowing what they want and what will make them happy.  I guarantee you that every single person who knows a family member, friend, coworker, spouse, parent, in-law, or any other person close to them that has died of Covid-19 would be O.K. with a vaccine mandate.  Did all of them have the foresight to know how they felt ahead of time? When the virus hadn't directly impacted them yet?  No, absolutely not.  That's why thousands of people are in hospitals right now on their deathbeds, begging to be vaccinated, only to learn it's too late.  The entire reason we have a CDC and medical professionals are to make good public health decisions for us.  They are there for the people.  This is also why the government has to mandate motorcycle helmets and seatbelts, and they have to enforce speed limits, and regulate the food industry.

The amount of proud ignorance in this country as at an all-time high.  People are out here begging for the freedom to die absolutely horrible, painful, suffocating deaths on a ventilator.  It's asinine to me and I genuinely cannot comprehend it.  

Gonna get off the Diesel engine train for a while.  So I tend to talk in very narrow context for what I'm thinking is a very high level thought. I see granting government power as equally as dangerous as most viruses. We give government power in order to make our lives better, provide for the common good. But we should measure that power accordingly and never give it out out of fear. Once granted, you usually have to fight a battle to get it back. I prefer a world where we only give the government a power when its absolutely necessary. We should treat government the same way we treat powers of attorney.  Very few people would give another person general power of attorney over all of their affairs. Instead, when a need is recognized, we tend to give out a special power of attorney and spell out all the limitations of that power.  So too should we approach government. The approach Diesel is proposing is very similar to a general power of attorney. The government can do whatever it deems necessary for anything it deems in the common good, instead of we the people recognizing that a special power may be needing to be granted and doling out a special power of attorney with strict limitation, guidelines and time limits.

A great example of this is the president doesn't have the power to declare war. He has limited powers to use the military for a short period of time before he must tell Congress and get their approval for additional use/an act of war.  The CIA can't operate on US soil (damn it, you all quit laughing. I want to believe that). Reservist can only be called to active duty for a maximum of 270 days and must be given time off between deployments. Its a special power with clear limits. The idea that the president can make a declaration and and remove your personal freedom over your own body is frightening and people should see it as such. That should only be allowed in clearly defined circumstances.  Public safety is way too vague a term to be throwing around. 

[thecampster]

This same "for public safety" or "The common good" argument is what led the mass incarceration of Japanese Americans during WW2. Its what led to the annexation of Native American lands, the forced conversions during the inquisition and was the same argument used for why thousands of black people were kept in slavery. Watch any period drama and the prevailing thought was "they'd starve without us".

I don't like giving up my freedoms because someone else takes them. I'm happy to surrender them when I see the cause is just but force it upon me and I'll resist on principal.  

[Diesel]

5 minutes ago, thecampster said:

Gonna get off the Diesel engine train for a while.  So I tend to talk in very narrow context for what I'm thinking is a very high level thought. I see granting government power as equally as dangerous as most viruses. We give government power in order to make our lives better, provide for the common good. But we should measure that power accordingly and never give it out out of fear. Once granted, you usually have to fight a battle to get it back. I prefer a world where we only give the government a power when its absolutely necessary. We should treat government the same way we treat powers of attorney.  Very few people would give another person general power of attorney over all of their affairs. Instead, when a need is recognized, we tend to give out a special power of attorney and spell out all the limitations of that power.  So too should we approach government. The approach Diesel is proposing is very similar to a general power of attorney. The government can do whatever it deems necessary for anything it deems in the common good, instead of we the people recognizing that a special power may be needing to be granted and doling out a special power of attorney with strict limitation, guidelines and time limits.

A great example of this is the president doesn't have the power to declare war. He has limited powers to use the military for a short period of time before he must tell Congress and get their approval for additional use/an act of war.  The CIA can't operate on US soil (damn it, you all quit laughing. I want to believe that). Reservist can only be called to active duty for a maximum of 270 days and must be given time off between deployments. Its a special power with clear limits. The idea that the president can make a declaration and and remove your personal freedom over your own body is frightening and people should see it as such. That should only be allowed in clearly defined circumstances.  Public safety is way too vague a term to be throwing around. 

I use to think like you... 

In dreamers terms... until my eyes were opened to the truth.   They already have the power.   They use it when they choose.   It's as simple as a working man's paycheck.   Income tax and SSI is automatically taken out.   Why?  Because the government doesn't trust people to pay in of their own volition.    Let me not even start with the Electoral College. 

So that power of attorney is already in place.  It's an unseen hand.   And just as soon as there reaches a level that the unseen hand is not happy with... a federal mandate will be put into place.  Just like the Stay Home order.. there won't be a debate about... it will just be the law of the land.    And implementation will be simple.  You will have to present a vax card to do anything.   And you will abide by it.  And yes, after a while, you won't even fight against it. 

They didn't teach that in your local civics class because the hand is unseen.   Was there ever a vote about Fluoride in your water supply?  Nope.. The "EPA" just made it a regulation.  There were some cities that tried to fight back.. but those fights were quickly upended.   That's that power of attorney.  It's that part in the preemable that says provide for the common defense. 

Why do you think there's a CDC...  It's the unseen hand's finger.   The CDC watches the levels and when it hits what has been established as ENOUGH.. Mandate. 

The unseen hand picks and chooses it's fight.   The unseen hand doesn't really care about abortion.  It just let's that fight continue because abortion doesn't effect the citizens in a negative way. It only effects the unborn.   But this virus has the potential to kill us all.   Go read what Bill Gates predicted about such a thing.   Highly transmittable.  Deadly.   I'm sure the unseen hand has read gates and possibly set a limit of about 1.5% - 2.0% death rate before it starts a mandate.   That's my guess.  And once the mandate goes into effect, it will be like Biblical times for the unvax... In fact, once they find a way to make sure that all children can be vax... the unseen hand will be looking for a decline and if there is no decline... Mandate.

 

 

 

 

[Diesel]

18 minutes ago, thecampster said:

This same "for public safety" or "The common good" argument is what led the mass incarceration of Japanese Americans during WW2. Its what led to the annexation of Native American lands, the forced conversions during the inquisition and was the same argument used for why thousands of black people were kept in slavery. Watch any period drama and the prevailing thought was "they'd starve without us".

I don't like giving up my freedoms because someone else takes them. I'm happy to surrender them when I see the cause is just but force it upon me and I'll resist on principal.  

By the time that it all comes down.. you wont even think you're being forced into anything.   But you are.  Like the "Draft" or the "selected service".    Those are my air quotes.  When the Unseen hands needs something done... we all go along for the ride.  Most of the time unknowingly.   Regulations and Mandates are passed everyday.  Most of the time, we are oblivious to the freedoms that have been taken. 

In the words of Rakim....

As you stare in the darkness, your knowledge is took!

 

[niremetal]

12 hours ago, thecampster said:

No your legal eagle take is always welcome. I just don't see you around as much.

So let me see if I can unravel this (being more than a novice but less than an expert on legal jargon).  In general, a medical inquiry into an employee's health (transmissible disease) would be generally limited to either A) an employee demonstrates symptoms consistent with a medical situation (ie protecting an employer who administers CPR, sends a sick employee home, etc) or B.) In a general policy applied to the general worker population without prejudice (all employees must be drug tested, 6 weeks family leave with cause, etc)?

1. Would those 2 statements be true?

and

2. Can you come up with another circumstance/situation?

(1) I think both of those statements would be true--that is, an employer could inquire into whether the employee has COVID or another infectious disease (or if they have taken precautions, such as vaccination, against the disease) in those two situations.

For (2), the answer is also yes, other such situations exist. In fact, pretty much any health-related question to any employee is okay under the ADA as long as it doesn't seek info about disability status--and most COVID inquiries would not be viewed as seeking info about disability status. Even if a question does seek info about disability status, that's still okay as long as the inquiry is "job-related and consistent with business necessity," which has been interpreted pretty broadly to cover most situations where there is potential health/safety risks to other employees involved.

FWIW, I personally think employers have too much leeway to collect data on workers, pry into their lives, and control them. But historically, the default rules governing employer/employee relations in the United States are drawn from the old, pre-1776 British rules governing the relationship between (I kid you not) masters and domestic servants. As a result, while employees are on the clock, employers have very few limits on what info they can gather on employees, and employees' right to privacy is extremely limited. There has to be a specific law passed by Congress or a state legislature to limit employers' rights in that space. And unlike in Europe, the US has no general law granting workers a broad right to privacy. So the only real limits on what questions employers can ask come from laws with fairly limited scope, like the ADA.

Edited September 27, 2021 by niremetal