Federal Appeals Court Upholds Blocking Vaccine and Testing Mandate

[9-10ths_Penguin]

so why choose one sentence to tell us that we must get vaccinated if the whole article on the Israeli study proved that Natural immunity is much better than the vaccine.

I evaluate all scientific claims by politicians and government officials by the followin litmus test.

If they dont mention anything about NATURAL IMMUNITY, they are giving half the truth, and sellected truths is a complete lie!
I had covid, and I dont want the vax, not because I am an anti vaxxer, but because people speaking like you are Brain vaxxers.

Why do you think they should talk about natural immunity? Are you suggesting infecting people with COVID as an alternative to vaccination?

Maybe step us through how you see it as relevant to the vaccine discussion.

 

[Jainarayan]

Not to us.

Anyone you're indoors with, though... yes, you do owe them an explanation. Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of their nose, so you owe it to them to explain to their satisfaction why you should be able to put them at risk.


"Are you wearing a seatbelt? Then you're protected. Don't worry about me driving drunk."

And just who are you that I have to account to you? I don’t like that people drink and there is the potential for them to drive drunk and hurt or kill someone. So, bad analogy, so cut the crap and the appeal to emotion. There are already laws in place against drunk driving and wearing seatbelts. When there are laws in place for mandatory vaccinations I’ll comply. That assumes however, it will be legal to ask me for proof.

If they get vaccinated they have nothing to fear. If it’s my house, you can leave. If it’s someone else’s house I can leave or not go. If it’s s public place that has no mandatory vaccine policy in place I’m free to be there.

Unless and until there are mandatory vaccine mandates in place I am not restricted. Therefore no, I don’t owe you an explanation.

 

[SA Huguenot]

No, No, and

Why do you think they should talk about natural immunity? Are you suggesting infecting people with COVID as an alternative to vaccination?

Maybe step us through how you see it as relevant to the vaccine discussion.

no, no, and I dont want to but lets step!

Why should I get vaccinated?
Why force me?
I have natural immunity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And just who are you that I have to account to you?

You don't. I'm free to call out jerkish behaviour you describe; you're free to ignore my posts.

I don’t like that people drink and there is the potential for them to drive drunk. Bad analogy, so cut the crap and the appeal to emotion. There are already laws in place against drunk driving and wearing seatbelts. When there are laws in place I’ll comply. That assumes however, it will be legal to ask me for proof.

Interesting that I make a point to you about the morality of your actions and you reply by arguing that your actions are legal.

You agree that these aren't the same thing, right?

If they get vaccinated they have nothing to fear.

Do you actually believe this?

If so, I think it's worth stopping to focus on that and correct your misunderstanding of how vaccines work.

Vaccines reduce risk; they don't eliminate risk. They're analogous to a seatbelt in that way: your risk of dying in a crash is way, way less if you're wearing a seatbelt, but the risk isn't zero.

If it’s my house, you can leave. If it’s someone else’s house I can leave or not go. If it’s s public place that has no mandatory vaccine policy in place I’m free to be there.

Unless and until there are mandatory vaccine mandates in place I am not restricted. Therefore no, I don’t owe you an explanation.

Like I said: you don't owe me an explanation. I'm not the one you're putting at risk.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, No, and

no, no, and I dont want to but lets step!

Why should I get vaccinated?
Why force me?
I have natural immunity.

How much immunity do you think is enough?

How low do you think a person's risk of infection (reinfection in your case) or transmission should be where we say "okay - that's good enough. We don't need to go any lower"?

Bonus question: why did you decide on that number?

I mean, you're saying that someone who has naturally acquired immunity to COVID shouldn't need to get vaccinated... but we know that:

• The risk of reinfection isn't zero.
• The risk of reinfection gets much lower if the person who's had COVID is vaccinated (one source)

... so we know your standard isn't "as low a risk as possible without putting undue burdens on people"; it's something else. There's a threshold that you've decided is good enough... so where is that threshold and why did you place it there?

 

[Jainarayan]

you're free to ignore my posts.

Stock answer. However, you’re free to ignore mine too except for the desire to throw in your two cents and say my behavior is “jerkish”. No one appointed you Arbiter of Vaccinations.

Interesting that I make a point to you about the morality of your actions and you reply by arguing that your actions are legal.

What actions I’m doing are illegal? Who’s morality? Has it been defined other than by people parroting internet rhetoric as you and some others are doing?

If so, I think it's worth stopping to focus on that and correct your misunderstanding of how vaccines work.

Deflection.

Vaccines reduce risk; they don't eliminate risk. They're analogous to a seatbelt in that way: your risk of dying in a crash is way, way less if you're wearing a seatbelt, but the risk isn't zero.

When vaccines become law…

You know the rest.

Like I said: you don't owe me an explanation. I'm not the one you're putting at risk.

You don’t know that I’m putting anyone at risk. You’re spouting parroted rhetoric.

 

[SA Huguenot]

How much immunity do you think is enough?

How low do you think a person's risk of infection (reinfection in your case) or transmission should be where we say "okay - that's good enough. We don't need to go any lower"?

Bonus question: why did you decide on that number?

I mean, you're saying that someone who has naturally acquired immunity to COVID shouldn't need to get vaccinated... but we know that:

• The risk of reinfection isn't zero.
• The risk of reinfection gets much lower if the person who's had COVID is vaccinated (one source)

... so we know your standard isn't "as low a risk as possible without putting undue burdens on people"; it's something else. There's a threshold that you've decided is good enough... so where is that threshold and why did you place it there?

1. Only one infection is enough. Israeli study done with 1.3 million patients.
2. Yes, I will get re infected... but what they did not tell you is...

• Vaccinated people will also be re infected. and there is no guarantee that future mutations will be stopped by the current vaccines.
• and unvaccinated people has a higher chance of surviving new variants, than vaccinated persons. due to the overall immunity they aquired, versus the narow spike spectrum the vaccine gave to a person.
• My immune spectrum is 13 timed higher than someone who only had vaccines.
• And the last statement you made is half true.

If I receive the vaccine, I have a high chance to get longterm illness due to the side effects it renders. Goiter problems, heart disease, nurological problems etc.
These side effects are not given as a warning, but the proponents of the vaccines keeps on telling us how safe it is.

Therefore, with my natural immunity, I have greater protection than you, and I do not need the vaccine.

Any person who received the vaccine will still contract Covid, and future variants.
They will still transmit it to other people.
They still have a chance to become very ill, and to die, actually, their chances of dying is far greater than me and my natural immunity.

So why do you say I should get the vaccine, when clearly I observe total brainvaxed bias against natural immunity?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

1. Only one infection is enough. Israeli study done with 1.3 million patients.
2. Yes, I will get re infected... but what they did not tell you is...

• Vaccinated people will also be re infected. and there is no guarantee that future mutations will be stopped by the current vaccines.
• and unvaccinated people has a higher chance of surviving new variants, than vaccinated persons. due to the overall immunity they aquired, versus the narow spike spectrum the vaccine gave to a person.
• My immune spectrum is 13 timed higher than someone who only had vaccines.
• And the last statement you made is half true.

If I receive the vaccine, I have a high chance to get longterm illness due to the side effects it renders. Goiter problems, heart disease, nurological problems etc.
These side effects are not given as a warning, but the proponents of the vaccines keeps on telling us how safe it is.

Therefore, with my natural immunity, I have greater protection than you, and I do not need the vaccine.

Any person who received the vaccine will still contract Covid, and future variants.
They will still transmit it to other people.
They still have a chance to become very ill, and to die, actually, their chances of dying is far greater than me and my natural immunity.

So why do you say I should get the vaccine, when clearly I observe total brainvaxed bias against natural immunity?

Never mind - you're living in a fantasy land. I don't think discussing this issue with you would help get you to a reasonable position.

 

[Jose Fly]

This claim has merit, ie, that many Democrats do want
to take guns away.
Democrats have spent years denying they'll take people's guns. Not anymore. | CNN Politics

Or more accurately, "want to take certain types of guns away" (which has always been the case, for example sawed-off shotguns).

 

[Kooky]

And… ?

And read the article I supplied, then you will understand why I consider your refusal to acknowledge the context of the poem you quoted at me to be a form of pretense.

 

[Jainarayan]

And read the article I supplied, then you will understand why I consider your refusal to acknowledge the context of the poem you quoted at me to be a form of pretense.

Are you going to tell me the possibility doesn’t exist? Are you going to tell me this never happened? Stick your head in the sand if you wish. I don’t know how old you are, but you have little to no memory or understanding of history.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You know what really irks me?
People comparing the onerous situation of to testing/vaccinating during a pandemic with living under the Nazi regime.

I once tried to become a history teacher, which in my country meant acquiring a broad and relatively in depth knowledge of Nazi Germany and its crimes against humanity. Seeing and hearing measures against a global pandemic - however you may think about them - compared to those crimes is making me really, really mad and disgusted at this blatant attempt at emotional manipulation.

I agree and have said the same thing myself. I think the comparison is an insult against the millions who lost their lives to the Nazis.

 

[SkepticThinker]

And just who are you that I have to account to you? I don’t like that people drink and there is the potential for them to drive drunk and hurt or kill someone. So, bad analogy, so cut the crap and the appeal to emotion. There are already laws in place against drunk driving and wearing seatbelts. When there are laws in place for mandatory vaccinations I’ll comply. That assumes however, it will be legal to ask me for proof.

If they get vaccinated they have nothing to fear. If it’s my house, you can leave. If it’s someone else’s house I can leave or not go. If it’s s public place that has no mandatory vaccine policy in place I’m free to be there.

Unless and until there are mandatory vaccine mandates in place I am not restricted. Therefore no, I don’t owe you an explanation.

You don't think you are accountable to other the other people you share a society with? I find that sad, and a big problem. Once everybody starts thinking that way, we're in trouble.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Are you going to tell me the possibility doesn’t exist? Are you going to tell me this never happened? Stick your head in the sand if you wish. I don’t know how old you are, but you have little to no memory or understanding of history.

No understanding of history?

You're the one quoting poems from history without being aware of their connections to Nazis and their actions during WWII.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Stock answer. However, you’re free to ignore mine too except for the desire to throw in your two cents and say my behavior is “jerkish”. No one appointed you Arbiter of Vaccinations.

I'll keep participating in this thread as long as I feel like it.

And there are a lot worse words I could use than "jerkish" to describe someone needlessly putting others at risk of a deadly disease by not bothering to do small, basic things like get vaccinated.

What actions I’m doing are illegal? Who’s morality? Has it been defined other than by people parroting internet rhetoric as you and some others are doing?

If you don't like my morality, then let's use yours: what would you think of someone who, out of ignorance or apathy, was maximizing the chance that they'd give you a deadly disease?

Deflection.

Truth. You've told us, effectively, that you don't understand the thing you're objecting to.

Any conclusion that you make based on that misunderstanding is not going to be sound.

When vaccines become law…

You know the rest.

I don't, actually.

You don’t know that I’m putting anyone at risk. You’re spouting parroted rhetoric.

I'm assuming your posts were relevant to the thread. This might be a bad assumption on my part, I admit.

This thread is about vaccine mandates. These mandates only apply in settings where there's a significant risk of transmitting COVID. Vaccine mandates are irrelevant to a hermit who never sees anyone else and never goes into town, because he's never going to be in a situation where the vaccine mandates would apply.

If you're unvaccinated and, say, going into stores or offices, you are putting others at needless risk.

 

[Revoltingest]

Or more accurately, "want to take certain types of guns away" (which has always been the case, for example sawed-off shotguns).

They want to take away additional kinds of guns.
So when Democrats claim they don't want to take
away guns, it's dishonest.

 

[Jose Fly]

They want to take away additional kinds of guns.
So when Democrats claim they don't want to take
away guns, it's dishonest.

Well, I think most folks grasp the nuance. Those who truly think Dems want to ban and seize all guns probably aren't all that bright to begin with.

 

[Jainarayan]

You don't think you are accountable to other the other people you share a society with? I find that sad, and a big problem. Once everybody starts thinking that way, we're in trouble.

No I don’t. Not unless or until there is a law that says otherwise or someone else starts paying my bills or feeding me. When I have to account to other people whom I am connected to only by seeing the same sky or walking on the same ground, that is communism. This is bordering on the theme of the Star Trek episode Return of the Archons... to be “not of the body”. And frankly, your thinking is even more frightening than you claim mine is. You have no proof I am a danger to society, but the thought that you would so easily capitulate to mob and herd mentality is the danger. So now, tell me how if I am covid negative or survived covid and have an immunity, because I’m not vaccinated, I’m a danger.

 

[Jainarayan]

I agree and have said the same thing myself. I think the comparison is an insult against the millions who lost their lives to the Nazis.

Show where a comparison was made to the Nazis or the millions they killed.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, I think most folks grasp the nuance. Those who truly think Dems want to ban and seize all guns probably aren't all that bright to begin with.

About the not so bright quip...
Those in glass houses ought not throw stones.