None of that matters to the point.
That point being: at first the policy was X, later the policy changed. There were no "special" rules for those who signed their contract before the policy change.
So why should there be here, which was the point being implied and which is what I was responding to...?
It's the context. If there wasn't coercion and push for the vaccine, I think they'd probably be a bit more willing to take it per their job. In and of itself, though, I don't agree people need to lose their job because of this.
The COVID vaccine situation is much more charged than just any vaccine required due to change of rules. It's assuming that context doesn't apply and people just should follow "or" loose their job-coercion.
What would happen if majority of the workers left their hospital job (and any job for that matter)?
How would the hospitals and government for that matter handle that immediate lost?
I also wonder if provaxxers would laugh at the people who lost their jobs-even more so catch COVID.
All this is besides the actual point (not to mention ignorant - but that's not even relevant).
The point was about policy change. Not about the reasons for why smoking got banned in certain places or why this particular vaccine is now mandatory in certain places.
You mean more there was a smoking policy and now there is none and people shouldn't be upset just the same as the vaccine policy from where there wasn't one until required?
Smoking wouldn't be a good example for vaccines. It's better argument for masks because in both cases, people can stop smoking or wear masks-it's versatile.
A lot of the arguments with vaccines is it's not versatile. They actually inject you with it (however it works). It's one thing to be told to wear clothes when walking in a store and a whole 'nother to say you have to take X medication before coming into the store.
That's the difference.
Yet every doctor will tell you to get vaccinated. Except for a few marginal nutcases left and right, off course. But even this is not relevant to the point being made.
You get my point, though?
I'm talking about ethics. A doctor won't tell you to get vaccinated if he knows you have a condition that prevents it and he won't push it on you if you believe it's not in your best interests.
The point is that "experts" weigh the situation before telling people to take the vaccine.
Provaxxers push it on people without thinking of any other factors involve...yet they say they are listening to the experts.
And people who refuse to get vaccinated with a certain vaccine, must bear the consequences.
As others have said, plenty of schools demand kids to be vaccinated against all kinds of things.
Sure, you can go and be irresponsible and not get your kids vaccinated. You then can also go and look for a school that will allow them to go there.
They "may" bear the consequences (must sounds like fear-it's not definite-we just don't know). They put themselves at "a" risk of catching COVID, but the "level" of risk depends on the person not whether or not he or she took the vaccine in and of itself.
The problem is if Joe (going off of this point only not the OP), if Joe lived isolated with vary little population which there are many in the States or small population in some states and decides not to take the vaccine while another person in a heavily populated area decides not to take the vaccine, provaxxers will treat them the same-saying they refuse, not thinking of others, selfish, and ignorant.
Wouldn't they need to know more about these two people to make a determination whether or not they "warrant" those accusations (if one likes) and not make a blanketed statement just because someone says he or she is not vaccinated?
There's no double standard here. There's only your strawman (and ignorance, I'ld say).
Because you disagree with me?
Double standard doesn't imply attacking a person's intellect (it's not attacking the person, just the argument).
