I had to get the MMR, varicella, Mantoux test, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, and several other vaccines to work in healthcare. Children need to get a host of vaccines to go to school and that has been true for a hundred years. The only thing new here is a politically driven disregard for human life.
> Never before have I seen restaurants and hospitals requiring me to show proof of a particular medical treatment before they will serve me.
Perhaps because previously everyone (or "enough" people) were required to get particular medical treatments (i.e., vaccinations) to get into kindergarten, and that it was just assumed that 'everyone' had the vaccinations—or at least anyone who go into and graduated kindergarten. The only change is a new disease that previously did not exist so there was no vaccine for it, so we all had to get it all at once now.
Rules for my local jurisdiction:
> Unless they have a valid exemption, children who attend primary or secondary school must be immunized against: diphtheria, tetanus, polio, measles, mumps, rubella, meningitis (meningococcal disease), whooping cough (pertussis), chickenpox (varicella) – required for children born in 2010 or later.
I'm also amused by current members in the military objecting to having to get the COVID vaccine… when you had to get a whole bunch of vaccinations to join in the first place. And this is nothing new: in the US, General George Washington had mandates.
The thing that I think people are missing in this whole situation isn’t that the government hasn’t had immunization mandates before, but how it’s trying to implement this one. There are definitely exemptions to it, and some of those exemptions appear to follow some historical political alliances (democrats and certain unions as an example). When you carve out exceptions based on politics instead of logic, people will resist.
While I don’t like mandates, I would be less resistant to them if they were applied logically…or if short of logically—at least evenly.
Your link requires children to be "immunized" against the diseases, which presumably does not mean "vaccinated". (For example, I have never had a chickenpox vaccine.)
Same here. Although never before (read, in my lifetime and geographic location), has it been possible for people to get so heavily sick or die from breathing in the exhaled air of another human.
I agree that the vaccine requirements are unprecedented. I just don't think they're the only thing that's unprecedented at this time. I can't imagine being a business owner and having people die because of the air in my building. Even if it's "not my fault" I'd still probably feel horrible. As a side note, my great uncle, we believe, caught covid at a restaurant, along with his wife and his brother-in-law. He died and she was really sick in the hospital.
I seem to remember "No shirt, no shoes, no service" in my time, justified as a public health measure (even if that wasn't the real justification).
Likewise food service workers have long been required to bandage wounds, wear hair nets and gloves, avoid work when ill, etc.
If COVID were only transmissible when you were symptomatic there would probably be no real public health need to apply this kind of check. But since it is silly to think you can simultaneously use masks and eat in a restaurant, as anti-vaxxers are fond of reminding us, you're left with measures like that if you want indoor dining in a restaurant.
Isn't this just an argument from ignorance? We probably have written records from the last pandemic. If you really think that the parent post is incorrect, why not furnish evidence?
The whole premise of protecting the replication of a virus at the expense of human life is an argument from ignorance. What if this and what if that and whining about not wanting a little inconvenience to protect my job and my life and my neighbor’s life…what a bunch of entitled snowflakes
>The whole premise of protecting the replication of a virus at the expense of human life is an argument from ignorance
that's not what argument from ignorance means: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance. While there's definitely anti-vaxxers that making the "well we don't know whether it's safe/effective", it's obvious that this thread isn't arguing that. It's possible to acknowledge that the virus is deadly and the vaccine is safe and effective, and still be against mandates on moral grounds (consequentialism vs deontology). I suggest you better understand the position of your opponents rather than immediately going for the "what a bunch of entitled snowflakes" conclusion.
Again, I don't think people are anti-mandates because they're pro-virus. Characterizing that side as "pro-virus" makes as much sense as characterizing the anti-surveillance crowd as "pro-terrorist".
>To be against the mandate on moral grounds cannot be moral, because killing people is wrong and perpetuating the virus is anti-human.
Consider the following: you're a consequentialist, your opponents are deontologists. You think the ends justifies the means. They don't.
For what it's worth: religious, medical, and philosophical exemptions to various immunization requirements have also been some kind of thing forever in various locations. And in the past, nobody hyperventilated about their own immunity not working if another person wasn't immunized for some reason.
> The only thing new here is a politically driven disregard for human life.
The only new thing here? And you can read minds and are certain that the only possible motive here is a disregard for human life? Really? That is not a serious comment.
I'd argue there's a lot of new things and qualitative differences here.
Here are 2 big ones you should consider.
#1) Once the technology to measure clicks was invented, the business model of the mass media has changed from promoting how trustworthy they were to a competition about driving traffic through emotional manipulation (fear, anger, sadness, etc). What media somebody uses has a big impact on how they trust either the Covid-Fear-Porn or Vaccine-Fear-Porn presented.
#2) These vaccine were developed in a much different and quicker fashion than previous vaccines: many of which took around 10+ years of development and testing before being introduced into a mass audience. I think it's entirely rational to be more than a little cautious about the short-term side effects and long-term problems with these new vaccines. It's very easy to see why somebody who took plenty of previous vaccines is cautious about these vaccines.
And those childhood vaccines are required by STATE law, using the states legal authority. The injunction spells out that the states have ‘police authority’ in this area, not the federal government.
So do you think OSHA has any legal authority regarding occupational safety and health? Is their existing regulatory authority unconstitutional across the board?
It’s all spelled out in the court ruling. OSHA derives it’s power from the commerce clause which gives Congress authority over interstate commerce activities.
You are exposed to millions of antigens daily, and almost none are FDA approved. This isn’t at all like a new chemical entity, it is a short-lived antigen that trains your immune system, then goes away. This isn’t 1960, it’s 2021. It’s safe, certainly safer than COVID, and necessary to protect you, your family, your neighbors, and our society.
