No, it's not a choice. It's an inherent right. In your country, I believe it's deemed as "God given." There isn't any method to "opt out" of existing. Enshrined in our ethos and legislation is freedom of movement and freedom from persecution. So there's a difference between a specific employer deciding if you can enter his premises (again, I'll call this murky because if they aren't allowed to use prejudice in any other area then it could be a problem here. But we don't yet know about liability, so it's a tough call). You're suggesting that existing - ie having a job, moving around in public, getting food, etc - is on the same level as choosing to drive a car. I say it is not. And I say that restrictions on the power of the state are different than what a private business may decide. And the vaccine, while overall effective and an order of magnitude less risky than Covid - is not safe. It has its own list of side effects, which of course is the reason why some people can't get it. It's not a harmless vaccine. It's a calculated risk that it is less harmful than the alternative. I personally agree that if you choose to take the risk, you should be financially liable for the outcomes. In this same Nirvana world, I would also say that *these* are the dedicated Covid hospitals, and everywhere else get back to business. In practice, medicine makes their living on the stupid actions of the public. For every person injured due to a freak accident or plagued with a genetic disease, there are two dozen who did something stupid to put themselves in that position. Where's your line? How much is "vaccinated enough" to quit with the restrictions? Studies are proving that natural antibodies to Covid (ie you contracted it and healed) are 10-13x better than the vaccine antibodies at long-term protection. Do unvaccinated people who have had Covid fall into your exempt category? How do you enforce all these great ideas without also turning the day-to-day lives of people into a state-controlled dystopian nightmare? Have fun with that. Anyone who threatens legal action, IMO, doesn't have much experience with it. You'll have to PROVE (because the burden will be on you), that your son got the disease from that person and could not have contracted it anywhere else. This means that you'd have to DNA sequence your son's virus, DNA sequence the infector's virus, prove that one is the derivitive of the other and THEN prove that no other sources of infection were possible to the satisfaction of the court. And if you somehow manage all of that (keep in mind that your attorney and the experts will all be on billable time and running you around $350/hour), and the court agrees, you now have to collect from the person you sued. Because collection is also on you. Which means you have to make sure that the person you're suing is financially worth it AND that you have some means of forcing them to pay. Let me know how it works out. You don't need an argument to not want a procedure. I've posted before, but non-scientific surveys from the CBC showed the following primary answers for the unvaccinated: 1. I've already had Covid and don't need it (they're right). 2. I have a medical condition that precludes me. 3. I don't trust the vaccines and am worried about side effects, either known or in the future. Any person who's chosen to not get vaccinated has, in my circle at least, truly examined the evidence and made the choice for themselves. While I'm sure the ignorant redneck trope exists, it hasn't been my experience.
This argument is fundamentally flawed. The state can and does determine what goes into your body, and can force it in a variety of ways. From flouride to lethal injection, this is common...the government literally determines how much alcohol can go into one container, or how to go from a tit to a milk container. The state determines your rights and your ability to defend those rights....it's a stacked deck against you. So, if the government really wants you to get a vaccine, they can absolutely do it. Requirements range from school enrollment, to tax credits, to getting a passport or a driver's license...hell, you can even be prevented from working in a given profession. Don't pretend this is some fair argument between you and the government. Right now this hestitance is tolerated, it's not a given right. It's a liberal democracy, so we flex a little with enforcement. The difference in public health law versus public safetly law is public health law is generally predicated on a broader set of victims and a more nebulous concept of responsibility. If I hit you with my car, it's between you and I. The argument that protecting yourself from COVID is like saying "I'm walking down the street with my lit flamethrower....if you get hot, that's your fault for not protecting yourself." We don't let people do that either. You pose too much of a risk to be allowed to do that in public. It's just that simple. When COVID happened, the risk calculus for public life changed. The vaccine is one step to restore it to normal, and just like any other basic public health measure like shoes, public toilets or not screaming the N word at the top of your lungs, it requires a certain degree of personal responsibility. You can opt out, we allow you to do that. One of the reasons for public health emergency powers in the first place is people taking the nebulous concept of responsiblity and interpreting it personally...with violence. Lynching during plagues isn't exactly rare. So, generally speaking, opting out needs to have some valid excuses beyond your personal philosophy for it to be acceptable. And previously, the fringe group of people who believed they could enjoy the benefits of society with the philosophy of complete independence was insignficant, as was their reach. Similarly, The anti-vaxx movement was tolerated before, because it's not worth arguing: who the fuck remembers mumps? When's the last time anyone lost an appendage to polio? Remember, we have a lot of laws, and enforcing them sucks. So we only enforce the ones that we think are kind of important (or that generate revenue for the police, but whatevs). Now, however, we've got a serious death count, a massive and unprecedented strain on public health by new and serious threat. One in 10 Americans has had COVID. That's INSANE, especially considering that 1 in 10 people with COVID have serious long-term heatlh problems, that our crowded, shitty and expensive system is not prepared to deal with. So, a population the size of Baltimore is dead, with a population about the size of Dade County having lifelong health issues is more than enough to justify some extreme public health measures, the likes of which haven't been contemplated outside of getting high and reading Frank Miller's "Martha Washington" series. This cost TRILLIONS already. There are thousands dead and millions debilitated. If this had only happened to one country, it would literally destabilize the regime, and the place would be torn apart. I cannot overstate how dramatic this loss of life and health has been. It's worse than any war we've been in. The longer this drags on, the more damaged the social structure becomes, and the more people die. Children. The more children die. The whole purpose for the state's existence is to ensure the general safety and wellbeing of the citizens of the public. Yes, the state is absolutely justified in infringing on personal liberty to avoid further loss of life, degradation of life and destruction of social order. The fact that it hasn't gone further in doing so is a testament to either chickenshit leadership or politically-influenced deferential restraint, depending on your viewpoint.
If you think about it, the whole reason we’re in this mess is because we wanna keep doing stupid things, like having free elections.
Take some horse paste. What could go wrong? https://www.insider.com/oklahomas-e...d-with-people-overdosing-on-ivermectin-2021-9
This is some hilarious shit: https://www.reddit.com/r/ChurchOfCO...oked_a_clown_for_my_kids_zoom_birthday_party/
rise in ivermectin poisonings has emergency rooms so backed up that gunshot victims can't get a bed This is funny in the sense that it's so dumb I can't believe it's an actual thing that's happening. But also, at what point do we start holding the people who spread this information criminally and civilly liable? Or what about the people who take it without doctors orders and then take up a bed for someone who wasn't fucking retarded?
Well yeah, that same user posts a lot of stories like that. You should check them out if you want a laugh.
Oh is the point of that sub to make fun of the pandemic doom porn? I had never heard of it. Then it’s even funnier.
Whiffs of bullshit. Single doc claims to local outlet a salacious headline, no real digging on the news outlets part, picked up and ran by outlets with an agenda without any digging, just amplifying for them page clicks (had to cram in a paragraph about Joe Rogan). Also, Rogan came out and claims he's already tested negative for Covid. Suck it poor fatties!
https://www.google.com/amp/s/tulsaw...20c0d850-0a62-11ec-a376-e7df03dd09bf.amp.html Yeah, the same doctor was quoted in the article linked above on September 2, about the gunshot Vic having to wait, but no mention of the ivermectin OD being the cause of the lack of bed space. The Rolling Stone article was published on September 3.
They updated their story since the hospital released a statement and corrected them. They hadn't treated a single case of ivermectin overdose, they are not having a bed shortage because of it, and the doctor was only loosely affiliated with staffing and hasn't worked at the hospital in over two months. Fake fucking news.