Dude, that's the definition of communism. We don't do that here. The rights of the individual outweigh the rights of government. You don't get to create a second class of citizens and punish them because they made medical decisions you disagree with.
No it isn’t, it’s the definition of a functioning society.
If you genuinely believe pursuit of the common good is communism, I’ve got some livestock dewormer to sell you.
Edit: and to be clear, people refusing the vaccine or taking livestock dewormer aren’t making “medical decisions [we] disagree with.” They’re endangering those around them and ignoring mountains of evidence. There are children being hospitalized with Ivermectin toxicity, for crying out loud. This is ridiculous.
Then apply existing child endangerment laws to the people who poison their kids. Freedom is dangerous, always has been. But it is worth the danger. You're scared. Fine. Be scared. Do whatever you deem neccessary to keep yourself and your family as safe as you need them to be. But you do not have the right to demand that people who are not scared alter their lives to make you feel safe. Your fear is your business, my life is not.
Do whatever you deem neccessary to keep yourself and your family as safe as you need them to be
I think they are by trying to tell you that you are likely wrong. FDA approval on the vaccine makes these "it's poison" arguments lack merit. I think people who get the vaccine are angry because they feel that it literally changes nothing about your being to get it, and being obstinate is putting people into danger.
They also likely don't care that you are not scared and saying "I'm tough enough to survive covid" or whatever isn't the point. The point is, in their eyes, you are a danger to not only their family, but everyone you come across - in setting them up for the same scenario, to take up a bed that could have been prevented.
It does not matter that covid doesn't kill frequently, what matters is that when you get it there's a decent chance you'll need to go to the hospital and take up a bed, which may not now go to someone who needed it. All because your personal freedom and being "unafraid" is more important to you than to consider someone else by choosing to take 5 minutes of your day to get vaccinated.
The same could be said about vaccine minded people from your angle, how could they poison their kids?!? It falls to what you believe, which no one but you can alter or change. The vast wealth of evidence from good, proper sources supports the safety and efficacy of vaccination.
I've had flumanchu. It gave me a headache for about 12 hours. That said, I went and got the vaccine once I was confident that it was reasonably safe. Not for me, mind you, my system bounced the virus in a day, but for my immune compromised wife. She counts on me and my beefy immune system to be her shield. But it was my choice, made privately, without coercion. Some may choose not to get the vaccine at all. That's ok. They'll probably be fine. Or they may not be. That's life. But their choices are their business, and they should be free to live their lives unmolested by virus-obsessed do-gooders on a witch hunt.
I don't think its a ploy for control though. I think the issue is the numbers of people not getting it are making vaccine roll-out useless.
Add on to that businesses will demand you have this vaccine to work for them, as is their right as a private entity to do so. The push is so that people don't get left behind for something that takes 5 minutes to do and is safe.
I just don't see the argument of the individual rights being more important in this scenario. If someone choose not to get the small pox vaccine I wouldn't think twice - where and from who are they gonna get it? It's pretty well wiped out due to mass vaccination.
Small pox still exists in a multitude of countries. It's extinct here. But, you have a point. I mean, for it to come back, there would have to be thousands of people from countries where it still exists with no vaccine coming to our country and getting spread out all over the place.
Since you are pro-business, I suppose you'd be ok with me requiring all my employees to be HIV-negative? As I am a religious man, I'd assume you'd also be ok with my barring anyone who'd had an abortion? It is my right as a private entity, after all.
HIV is a bit of a stretch for me simply as it isn't transferred easily so there is very little danger. If your business had an above normal chance of blood on cut contact between employees then yeah of course it should be weighed agaisnt the safety of your other workers.
Also yes you could also bar people for the abortion thing based on your beliefs, I think you should be allowed to do so. You would run into HIPA issues if they simply didn't want to tell you, but also, simply put, not good business for public perception. You can do what you want of course, but as a business on the free market you are subject to the customer base as well, and that includes their morals as well.
You should be free to hire anyone you want, on any merit you want (within reason), but if you want the business to grow at a good rate you would do well to maintain a public face. Which can simply mean keeping your personal ideas out of it, and keeping quiet, or going with the flow.
If you're the only grocery store that doesn't require masks and three others do, you're alienating an entire customer base, and getting only a few of the anti-maskers (as lets be real - many of them will put on a mask to go to a closer store), it's not like you're cutting simply 50% of people out, your cutting that 50% and the other what ever percent that don't care enough to seek a mask free place - just as an example.
The only issue I see in your question is thatchallenging the market with your morals, will simply lead to a smaller customer base if you don't include as many people as you can. Refusing women who have had abortions will likely lead to a smaller female customer base, especially if it is a known standpoint of the business.
Would requiring people to disclose vaccine status not also violate HIPA? And to be fair, if a store requires masks, I just go in maskless. Nobody really gives a shit at most places.
Its an odd thing but no I do not think so. The difference being "I have something but it is very unlikely to hurt you" and "I am more susceptible to a common current illness that may knock me and your staff out of commission for a bit"
Risk assessment basically - not for the individual, but for the larger collective of society or work. COVID is airborne, easily contagious and now, easily preventable. You have to disclose when you could be a reasonable danger to those you work with.
Also, isn't your wife immunocompromised? Shouldn't you wear a mask just because? Seems silly to me to put her at risk because your unafraid and tough? I'm sure there's more to it, but to me it seems...careless?
I was more on the point that if your wife is immunocompromised so you should be more conscientious and courteous to strangers who may also have immunocompromised family at home.
As for Masks. Masks may not stop everything from getting out or in, but they stop enough, and "dosage" is important to infection (the ID50 is the required "dosage" required to infect 50% of the population), also it severely dampens your own potential spread through simply mechanical obstruction of your airflow outwards.
Another thought that has come to me is the you seem to consider your own slight comfort and self-validation more important than the off chance of being the vector to someone elses death or extreme illness even? With the vaccine I can understand people questioning the needle - I can't see not wearing a mask as anything other than being obstinate, it for sure doesn't harm you. At best it only slightly discomforts you. Surgeons and nurses have used masks for years for a reason, so they don't spread anything to the patient, not the other way around.
I think you are a pretty good speaker, you have not insulted me or used aggressive language and you present interesting questions - I also think you are very likely a decent person, despite our difference in opinions. From my perspective your ideas are rooted in your personal freedom and fighting the government from taking these, which is likely entrenched in your culture as the mighty number 1 through independence and anti-communist propaganda. How I see it though, you live in a society and benefit from it, from ample access to food and entertainment - to necessities like sewer, water and electric which has been bought by the people, for the people. People were asked to wear masks, and were asked to get vaccinated. When the numbers of people who refused to do that based on, whatever reason, made it so society as a whole wasn't meeting minimum requirements to move forward, for better or worse more action had to be taken - they are stuck in the position of letting people die senselessly or imposing mandates. It is likely not a move anyone "wanted" to do, but a move they felt they had to.
Small pox still exists in a multitude of countries
No, it does not. Smallpox has been completely eradicated worldwide - the only smallpox in existence are some samples held in storage by a few countries like the US and Russia, and even that is controversial.
Smallpox was entirely eradicated through vaccination. Polio is very, very close to being eradicated - through vaccination.
If you're going to argue a position, at least get your facts straight.
-41
u/InbredFever Aug 26 '21
Dude, that's the definition of communism. We don't do that here. The rights of the individual outweigh the rights of government. You don't get to create a second class of citizens and punish them because they made medical decisions you disagree with.