biden's vaccine mandate is unconstitutional but why should i care?

Author: n8nrgmi

Posts

Total: 105
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
So which is it? Does the vaccine keep you safe or no?
Thank you for demonstrating my point.

I literally just talked about how the situation is nuanced and your response is to frame the entire debate into a yes or a no.

The debate includes vaccine efficacy, individuals who cannot take the vaccines, the focusing of our precious medical resources to help the sick, the development of variants, and the economic impact of rising cases. Let me know when you’d like to have a conversation that includes the entire picture.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@949havoc
That kind of argument is the notion that the fetus is a parasite - nonsense.
Like I said, that is a debate for another thread. Do you have any response to the actual point my post was making?
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Thanks for demonstrating my point. When the  public wants to know why they should take the vax and if it's worth taking, they get a string of maybes and mandates.

That's very bad optics. At least lie consistently and say the Vax keeps you safe.

Saying the vax won't keep you safe in the same sentence advocating vax mandates is as bad as it gets. Most of the public can understand basic English.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Anyone who wants to know why they should take the vaccine can look at the science. Anyone who wants to know why we should impose mandates should study epidemiology. If they don’t want to read through hundreds of pages of reports and dedicate the hours it takes to understand it properly then they can listen to the experts. If they don’t want to do either then they are beyond help. Policy should be based on reality, not how it looks to the stupid and the ignorant.
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Double_R
It’s all pretty clear cut. People don’t get it, not because they “don’t get it”, because it was never about getting it; but about trying to shout it down. Many people are trying to pretend they want an answer, but really all they want to do is make people go through the effort of discussing it in good faith; only then to deflect, dodge change the subject - or simply pretend that you didn’t answer at all. It happens here all the time, which is odd as you would fully expect people on a debate site to be interested in debate, but I suspect too many people are more interested in trying to feed their own denial.


The vaccines efficacy is currently tracked at around 65%(Pfizer) and 80% (Moderna I beleive) for preventing infection.

What these numbers mean is that if you have a million vaccinated and a million unvaccinated - for each 100 unvaxxed person that get sick, only 35/20 will get sick in the vaxxed group.

For hospitalization and death, the number is 94%.

Meaning that in that same set of groups, for each 100 unvaxxed people that are hospitalized or die, only 4 of the vaxxed group will die.


They should think of it as a new technology in a car that 65% effective and preventing a collision, and 94% effective at preventing you being killed in the accident.

Side effects have been demonstrated to be minimal: you will likely have a generalized immune response - and that response involves arm pain, temperature, etc: but no significant respiratory illness. There are some more serious side effects - such as a small risk of blood clots, and swelling in the heart muscles - the risk actually being substantially lower than the risks of the same thing happening with covid.

So there’s almost no risk in getting the vaccine, and a massive benefit. This is played out in the statistical data in almost every state and countries where vaccine rates are high.



It needs to be reiterated - that vaccines, and vaccine mandates have been unremarkable, and uncontroversial for two centuries; critical tools of public health.


The only reason this is an issue today, now, is that in March last year, there was a major crash in the stock market that made Trump believe that he would lose his economic message and thus the election: mitigating covid and stopping the surge in cases and death has further economic impact: so the messaging was that anything to stop the virus that harmed the economy was bad. As conservatives have been spoonfed a diet of democeatsgungetcha for 30 years now, the best way of selling that was simply to keep yelling about mahrats.

Republicans don’t really care about the vaccine - it’s efficacy or anything. People who are asking with faux furrowed brow why they should be forced to take it, don’t really believe it’s really a big issue of rights; it’s not even about the vaccine at all.

This is just the latest canard in a long list of canards that Trump supporters can digest, parrot and scream so that they don’t have to think about the fact their party and their leaders do not really stand for anything, nor have any policies of note.

All that they really have, is getting people mad, and training them to not listen to information they don’t like.

This is why instead of actually having a discussing about the data, the detail, or the efficacy of vaccines in good faith; you have people attempting to shut down debate by simply pretending you didn’t say any of the things you just did.



949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Double_R

That you don't see how the concepts of imposing the vaccine, and refusing abortion, are related is in your camp to decipher, not mine. What ideas can be brought to any given thread are not owned by anyone, particularly when the accuser is not the author of the other thread, but I see no ownership regardless of who starts a thread.

That said, I see a definitive link because both processes are being treated as mandates because anyone opposing abortion is branded as taking away a woman's right to her body, but anyone refusing to take the vaccine is branded as a heretic, not as one who also sees an invasion on their right to privacy of their body.

As it happens, I've had the vaccine, I merely argue for those who think it is a choice they should be allowed to make for their own reasons just as some women feel it is their right to choose to abort, or not, and not have anyone climb down their throat for it. It is the hypocrisy of defending abortion while proclaiming non-vaccinators as heretics. You don't see that? That's on you, bud.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Policy should be based on reality, not how it looks to the stupid and the ignorant.

Policy is always based on optics.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Anyone who wants to know why they should take the vaccine can look at the science.
What science study states the Unvaccinated puts Vaccinated people at risk for Covid-19 or anything else? As Biden stated during his Mandate speech.

People are sick of the BS more than Covid. There's now a lot of people with Vax regrets with all the talk about them still being vulnerable to the unvaccinated. What was the point if they don't keep you safe?

Bad, bad, bad Optics. Of all the unfounded things Biden could have claimed, this one was a real doozy.
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@949havoc
If the consequences of being forced to bring a child to term were that you had to have an injection, and a sore arm for two days - we’d all be pro-life.

If the consequences of being forced to have a vaccination (which is not quite the case btw) - was 9 months of health issues, high risk of stroke, and diabetes, weeks of nausea, health tracking,  financial burden, significant changes to your body, hormonal imbalances, and high risk of major health issues leading to at best, several hours of excruciating pain or major abdominal surgery; follows by multiple weeks if not months of recovery - then we’d all be anti-vaccine mandate.
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Ramshutu
If the consequences of being forced to bring a child to term
You ignore that in the preponderance of pregnancy cases, there was a prior choice of engaging sexual activity prior to the pregnancy, whether "protected" - like a vaccination, or not, since every single conception preventative has a failure rate but one, abstinence - so the argument that a woman is "forced" into carriage to term is disingenuous in the overwhelming majority of cases.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@949havoc
It's like saying a drunk driver was forced to pay up after he chose to drink and drive.
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@949havoc
I’m not ignoring it, it’s just irrelevant.

I used to be a smoker, I kinda accepted the possibility that I may get Lung Cancer in the future.

Your argument is like suggesting that as I accepted the risk of cancer, it’s fine to legally mandate that I should not be treated for it - which is just silly.

Likewise: accepting the premise that a woman accepts the risk of pregnancy - which in reality isn’t the most rational times of decision making: is fine. They accept the risk of getting pregnant: but it is possible to avoid all those substantial health impacts once they are if the woman does not want to ensure them.

Suggesting that woman is not being “forced” to have a child, is the same as suggesting that someone who is prevented from being treated for Lung Cancer is not being “forced” to endure cancer.

The same goes for a transplant; while it would suck, I think if you agreed to donate your kidney, signed the papers,  were prepped for surgery, and then shouted no as the mask was going on your face - you should be able to withdraw that consent - even though it could well (or definitely) lead to someone’s death.



3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@n8nrgmi
he's requiring it on large businesses. i might be wrong but i think a person doesn't have to get the shot if they get weekly testing. 

if ya'll idiots dont care about the people you're killing by not getting vaxed and wearing masks when needed, why should i care that someone is illegally trying to coerce you into doing the right thing, what you should have done all along? 
What's your core moral principle ?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@SkepticalOne
It's not illegal - there is precedent. Eg. Seatbelts in our vehicles.
Buckling a seatbelt is not a medical procedure.

AND,

Your employer does not require you to present a certificate declaring your "100% seatbelt compliance" as a condition of your employment.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@949havoc
every single conception preventative has a failure rate but one, abstinence
Implicit coercion may or may not qualify as "force" but it certainly begs the question of "purely voluntary".
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@n8nrgmi

TOTAL MORTALITY

EXCESS DEATHS PER 100K PEOPLE (since first 5 covid cases were reported)

USA = 241

KOSOVO = 227

LATVIA = 215

JAMAICA = 9

JAPAN = 2

CUBA = (-1)

SOUTH KOREA = (-11)

AUSTRALIA = (-12)

NEW ZEALAND = (-45)

yeS, there are quite a few countries who report TOTAL MORTALITY (numbers that are impossible to fake) BELOW EXPECTED MORTALITY (based on previous five years of TOTAL MORTALITY) in the time between when their first 5 cases were reported and NOW.

CDC.GOV confirmed the updated age-specific survival rates: 0-19 years old, 99.997 percent; 20-49 years old, 99.98 percent; 50-69 years, 99.5 percent; and 70 years old or older, 94.6 percent.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@949havoc
I see a definitive link because both processes are being treated as mandates because anyone opposing abortion is branded as taking away a woman's right to her body, but anyone refusing to take the vaccine is branded as a heretic, not as one who also sees an invasion on their right to privacy of their body.
The  problem is that the link you see is not based on what the debate is actually about. I already explained this, but let me try rephrasing to make this easier.

The abortion debate is about two entities competing for the right to one body, so the question at hand is which one has the ultimate right.

My body my choice is a legitimate argument here, because the person is saying that the fetus should not have a greater right to their body then they do.

Vaccine mandate’s are about public health, so the question at hand is whether one who refuses to reduce their potential to contract and spread the virus should have the complete right to expose themselves to other people.

My body my choice makes no sense here whatsoever. If you don’t want to get vaccinated then don’t, but then, you don’t get to expose yourself to the rest of us.

If you are framing the issues any differently in order to claim hypocrisy you are engaging in one big strawman.

Therefore any individual who uses this slogan when it comes to an issue where it has nothing to do with the debate (vaccine mandates), while rejecting it where is it literally the central question of the debate (abortion), is a hypocrite.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
There's now a lot of people with Vax regrets with all the talk about them still being vulnerable to the unvaccinated. What was the point if they don't keep you safe?
And yet another demonstration. Do you understand what the term nuance means? Does it occur to you that the world does not always spell every issue out in black and white?

Vaccines reduce your chances of contracting, spreading and becoming severely ill from COVID. It’s not a magic pill and it was never supposed to be. There is nothing optically bad about what logically follows from this, unless you are once again, stupid or just willfully ignorant.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
It's like saying a drunk driver was forced to pay up after he chose to drink and drive.
Drinking and driving is illegal and highly punishable. Do you believe the same should be true about having sex?
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Buckling a seatbelt is not a medical procedure.

So? Besides, companies require drug tests on a regular basis. Some jobs might require a physical...


Your employer does not require you to present a certificate declaring your "100% seatbelt compliance" as a condition of your employment.
If you have a driving job, your employer can certainly require you to wear a seatbelt. If you drive a cherry picker, you will 100% lose that job if found not wearing your harness.


3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
Vaccine mandate’s are about public health, so the question at hand is whether one who refuses to reduce their potential to contract and spread the virus should have the complete right to expose themselves to other people.
In other words,

GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT

ILLEGAL SEARCH

AND,

(IFF) I'VE ALREADY HAD THE PLAUGE (THEN) I AM JUST AS "IMMUNE" AS SOMEONE WHO HAD THE JAB
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@SkepticalOne
So? Besides, companies require drug tests on a regular basis. Some jobs might require a physical...
ILLEGAL DRUG TESTING IS NOT FEDERALLY MANDATED.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@SkepticalOne
If you have a driving job, your employer can certainly require you to wear a seatbelt. If you drive a cherry picker, you will 100% lose that job if found not wearing your harness.
NOBODY IS REQUIRED TO FEDERALLY REGISTER AND PROVE AND CARRY A CERTIFICATE FOR SEATBELT AND OR HARNESS COMPLIANCE.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
Vaccines reduce your chances of contracting, spreading and becoming severely ill from COVID.
The only function of a vaccine is to give your body a very mild case of the disease it is designed for.

(IFF) you've already had the disease (the news reports widespread "asymptomatic and mild" infection) (THEN) the vaccine is POINTLESS
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Drinking and driving is illegal and highly punishable. Do you believe the same should be true about having sex?

Sex is illegal in many cases,

It's also illegal to have sex while driving.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Does it occur to you that the world does not always spell every issue out in black and white?

Then why doesn't Biden just say that instead of saying one week being vaxxed keeps you safe and  saying the next week you will never be  safe from unvaxxed people even if you are vaxxed?

Also, you never did cite the scientific study for that latter claim. I will just assume you can't find any.
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
I don't think the federal government should be the one forcing large businesses to require mask mandates, but the stores themselves should. An overstep in government is dangerous and to force such rules to the degree in which Biden is proposing is a slippery slope. It is not his place to decide where you have to wear a mask unless it is federal territory, and I don't think the local Walmart is federal territory

I am very much pro vax at the moment. I don't believe there is any reason to not get the vaccine at this point. Not FDA approved? Now it is. Want to wait for the elderly to get the vaccine? I think most of them have gotten it already. That's the only issue I think that is logical. Even I waited for a bit to get the vaccine to allow more susceptible people to get it (especially knowing that I had antibodies since January 2021 when I obtained COVID). You have a right as an American to not get a vaccine or to not wear a mask, but don't expect to go to far when corporation start requiring you to wear masks in their stores
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Vader
Not FDA approved? Now it is.

FDA approved it without waiting for long term clinical trials. That approval doesn't mean what it typically means.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Also, from what I understand, the WH staff are STILL not required to be vaxxed.

This is probably the most damning optic of them all.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
In other words,

GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT
No, those are your words and your message, having nothing to do with what I’m talking about.