2 edits
@no1marauder saidDo they have covid? If not they should not have the conditions of their employment changed arbitrarily. They are no threat to anyone and should be able to continue in their chosen career. To destroy their career is punishment of an innocent person, you don't get to do that.
IF we say an unvaccinated person can't work in the healthcare field, are they being "punished" before or after they make the decision to go unvaccinated and thus increase the health risk to others?
If it's a condition of contract that they submit to being a human guinea pig in a medical experiment and they then refuse, no worries, the employer/employee relationship is over.
If it's a private practice = none of your business.
If they do have covid, whether juiced or not they should probably not go to work take a few days off.
If a surgeon has covid I'd prefer he didn't operate on me even if he's wearing a mask, but in the end that is an agreement between he and myself. If for eg it was an emergency I'd be happy to sign a waiver, maybe if I'd had covid and developed a natural immunity, no problem.
Edit: If you're a mask believer it shouldn't matter if they're juiced or not, whether they have covid or not, just wear the stupid rag and everyones happy.
@wajoma saidThis is pointless; you keep trying to come up with arguments i.e. the "haven't done it yet" only to go back to parroting the same BS when such arguments are easily refuted.
Do they have covid? If not they should not have the conditions of their employment changed arbitrarily. They are no threat to anyone and should be able to continue in their chosen career. To destroy their career is punishment of an innocent person, you don't get to do that.
If it's a condition of contract that they submit to being a human guinea pig in a medical experime ...[text shortened]... they're juiced or not, whether they have covid or not, just wear the stupid rag and everyones happy.
Go back to my post which already discussed your "they don't have COVID YET" argument last page and if you actually want to try to refute it, be my guest. Just parroting the same nonsense ain't doing it; review the speed limit and traffic light analogies also which make mincemeat of your "innocence" bromide.
EDIT: Maybe repeating this might help:
Someone who drives 80 mph in a 40 mph zone might be "innocent" in a vacuum but he has increased the danger to others and society can rightfully ban him from doing so and "punish" him if he disobeys that prohibition.
And of course this:
There is no way to tell in advance which specific individual will have COVID in the near future; all we know is that the unvaccinated have a higher chance of getting it and spreading it (MB's moronity not to the contrary). Thus what you are insisting on is some "right" to spread disease to others and it does not matter if it is deliberate or not.
@wajoma saidI'll try this one more time:
Do they have covid? If not they should not have the conditions of their employment changed arbitrarily. They are no threat to anyone and should be able to continue in their chosen career. To destroy their career is punishment of an innocent person, you don't get to do that.
If it's a condition of contract that they submit to being a human guinea pig in a medical experime ...[text shortened]... they're juiced or not, whether they have covid or not, just wear the stupid rag and everyones happy.
The purpose of traffic lights and speed limits is what? Obviously it is to lessen the chances of car crashes which pose a serious risk of death or other adverse consequences to those who are in one. Thus, we impose them and punish those who disobey them to reduce the danger to others.
This is the same principle that would apply to restrict the unvaccinated to certain jobs or certain public spaces i.e. they pose an enhanced risk of danger to others that of spreading a deadly disease.
We do not wait until the harm of a car crash has been actualized before punishing those who increase the risk of danger to others by speeding or running red lights even though they are "innocent" of creating a car crash until they actually do so. That would be ineffectual in reducing the danger of car crashes; we affirmatively punish behavior which increases the risk of car crashes.
Nor should we wait until someone has COVID (which we can't know until days afterward at the earliest) to take steps to prevent them from spreading this disease; that again would be ineffectual in reducing the danger of the outcome we are trying to prevent .
Got it?
@no1marauder saidWell you can give up trying because you've failed. There's no way you can shoe horn a traffic situation into an analogy for a perfectly innocent person who poses no threat to anyone having to submit to experimental drugs.
I'll try this one more time:
The purpose of traffic lights and speed limits is what? Obviously it is to lessen the chances of car crashes which pose a serious risk of death or other adverse consequences to those who are in one. Thus, we impose them and punish those who disobey them to reduce the danger to others.
This is the same principle that would apply to restri ...[text shortened]... ain would be ineffectual in reducing the danger of the outcome we are trying to prevent .
Got it?
After two years you claim to have stats backing your theory, this means two years ago you had even less justification for punishing innocent people who did not buy into your covid maximiser scare stories.
Here's another fail:
We do not wait until the harm of a car crash has been actualized before punishing those who increase the risk of danger to others by speeding or running red lights even though they are "innocent" of creating a car crash until they actually do so
There is zero (do we need more work on the definition of 'zero'?) risk of a person without covid causing an 'accident' so you don't get to restrict their movements. We know that a juiced person with covid can cause an 'accident' your argument for abusing natural rights and every individuals right to self ownership and bodily autonomy rests on your supposed stats that say although a juiced person may have covid and they may transmit covid they're less likely to cause an accident (generously we'll ignore the effectiveness of natural immunity). You can see how the traffic light or speeding analogy is unwieldy for the purpose of conveying this idea. About the best I can come up with is restricting the movements of a large dangerous vehicle, but then that would apply to juiced or unjuiced operators alike.
"Thus what you are insisting on is some "right" to spread disease to others and it does not matter if it is deliberate or not.
Misrepresentation. I have never insisted or argued for this. It is actually you that is arguing for this. I say that you have no right restricting any innocent person juiced or unjuiced that poses no threat to any other person. What you're insisting is that if a person has been juiced they do have a right spread the disease to others. You're insisting that the operator of a large dangerous vehicle can move about freely putting others at risk, simply because they took a majic potion. It doesn't matter that they are x%** less likely (**a majic arbitrary dream feeling number coming from No1s butt which is insufficient justification for discrimination and the trampling of natural rights) you're giving them a free pass when there are a thousand other factors that can make a person more likely to spread covid.
@no1marauder
Here is the proof the jabs cause much more sudden deaths than the unjabbed have.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/sudden-death-no-1-cause-death-under-65s-2021/5803866
You have been defending a fallacy.
@wajoma saidSince we know that people with no or mild symptoms can and do spread the disease, your idea that they have "zero" chance of doing so fails.
Well you can give up trying because you've failed. There's no way you can shoe horn a traffic situation into an analogy for a perfectly innocent person who poses no threat to anyone having to submit to experimental drugs.
After two years you claim to have stats backing your theory, this means two years ago you had even less justification for punishing innocent people who d ...[text shortened]... ree pass when there are a thousand other factors that can make a person more likely to spread covid.
And without it, your entire argument crumbles into dust.
BTW, the Biden vaccine mandate for employers allowed workers to be unvaccinated IF: 1) They provided a negative COVID test result on at least a weekly basis; and B) Wore a face mask at work.
Any objection to that policy?
@no1marauder
The vaccinated should be tested too. That is what is wrong with the policy.
They should also wear masks since that is what health care officials recommended. Oh, my bad. 2 masks. LOL
https://www.today.com/health/dr-fauci-shows-how-wear-2-masks-correctly-today-t208765
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/dr-fauci-on-cdcs-reimposed-mask-guidelines-vaccine-requirements-and-gop-criticism
Or you could admit the health officials were wrong. Which is it? Are the mandate policies wrong or was Fauci wrong? You cannot have it both ways.
1 edit
@metal-brain saidNothing in those two articles is inconsistent with the Biden mandate policy (both were written well before that policy was proposed BTW).
@no1marauder
The vaccinated should be tested too. That is what is wrong with the policy.
They should also wear masks since that is what health care officials recommended. Oh, my bad. 2 masks. LOL
https://www.today.com/health/dr-fauci-shows-how-wear-2-masks-correctly-today-t208765
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/dr-fauci-on-cdcs-reimposed-mask-guidelines-vaccine- ...[text shortened]... wrong. Which is it? Are the mandate policies wrong or was Fauci wrong? You cannot have it both ways.
Vaccinated people are much less likely to get and spread the disease, so I don't see why mandatory testing on them should be implemented. Ditto with face masks though, of course, they might want to do both i.e. wear face masks and periodically test themselves.
In general, I think public health officials did a good job considering the extraordinary circumstances of a new, highly contagious disease that, at first, little was known about. Contrary to your assertions, changing their recommendations based on newer and better information does not mean they "lied" when they made prior suggestions. It is most implausible that people who have worked for decades to protect the health and safety of the public all of sudden became partners in a evil plot to get graphene oxide into us so Bill Gates could control us through radio waves or whatever other crackpot conspiracy theory you come up with.
I think they did their best and appreciate their efforts in such difficult and historically unprecedented circumstances.
5 edits
@no1marauder saidAnd so we come to the end of the rd after a misrepresentation and a couple of diversions, a dead end.
Since we know that people with no or mild symptoms can and do spread the disease, your idea that they have "zero" chance of doing so fails.
And without it, your entire argument crumbles into dust.
BTW, the Biden vaccine mandate for employers allowed workers to be unvaccinated IF: 1) They provided a negative COVID test result on at least a weekly basis; and B) Wore a face mask at work.
Any objection to that policy?
This morning I went on a business trip to the smallest room in the house, when I turned around to see what had been achieved, hello, there was No.1's argument, brown and smelly, knobbly one end then tapering like a cigar, I hit the button, full flush, the water swirled and after a couple of laps around the bowl No'1's argument disappeared, gone to join the ideas of all the other tyrants.
A person that does not have covid (regardless of juice status) has zero chance of transmitting covid. I have repeated this consistently and concisely all the way. I have repeated this to the point of monotony knowing that snakes will slither. No.1 tries to dishonestly misrepresent this absolute statement as people who do have covid but are not showing it. A completely different group.
Just because something is difficult to prove does not mean you don't have to prove it.
And even if you do prove someone has covid you still do not get to force them into your medical experiment, you do have grounds for restricting their movements and interactions, they could be considered an objective threat.
But the mask true believers say if you have been juiced and you do have covid and you feel well enough, just wear a stupid rag on your face and you're good to go, (to make use of No1's traffic analogy) continue to operate your dangerous vehicle next to the school for blind children aged 2 to 4 years old. I disagree with this.
Just because something is difficult to prove does not mean you don't have to prove it.
There is too much at stake here.
@wajoma saidFortunately most societies haven't placed themselves in your ideological straitjacket and still believe in taking effective measures to control contagious diseases; they don't insist on it being proven beyond any doubt that someone is spreading the disease before doing anything to prevent them from doing so.
And so we come to the end of the rd after a misrepresentation and a couple of diversions, a dead end.
This morning I went on a business trip to the smallest room in the house, when I turned around to see what had been achieved, hello, there was No.1's argument, brown and smelly, knobbly one end then tapering like a cigar, I hit the button, full flush, the water swirled an ...[text shortened]... is difficult to prove does not mean you don't have to prove it.
There is too much at stake here.
Again, this would be akin to waiting until someone crashes their car into another before "punishing" them rather than "punishing" us all by putting up a traffic light.
@no1marauder said"Vaccinated people are much less likely to get and spread the disease:
Nothing in those two articles is inconsistent with the Biden mandate policy (both were written well before that policy was proposed BTW).
Vaccinated people are much less likely to get and spread the disease, so I don't see why mandatory testing on them should be implemented. Ditto with face masks though, of course, they might want to do both i.e. wear face masks and p ...[text shortened]... ir best and appreciate their efforts in such difficult and historically unprecedented circumstances.
That is not true. You have no evidence of that as you have been told countless times.
You have also failed to provide any source of information to back up your claim. The top 4 democrat politicians in the 2021 hierarchy got covid, Biden twice. Real world examples contradict your false assertion.
Stop lying!
1 edit
@wajoma saidMaybe we could break it down and you could explain which of the following you believe as regards unvaccinated individuals;
And so we come to the end of the rd after a misrepresentation and a couple of diversions, a dead end.
This morning I went on a business trip to the smallest room in the house, when I turned around to see what had been achieved, hello, there was No.1's argument, brown and smelly, knobbly one end then tapering like a cigar, I hit the button, full flush, the water swirled an ...[text shortened]... is difficult to prove does not mean you don't have to prove it.
There is too much at stake here.
A) There is no possibility they will ever contract COVID19; or
B) There is a possibility but if they do, they will instantly be aware of it and will, without any delay, isolate themselves from anybody else.
The idea that those who presently don't have COVID pose no threat of ever spreading it, on which your entire argument rests, relies on either A and/or B.
Do you deny that both are clearly false?
1 edit
@no1marauder
https://www.sgtreport.com/2023/01/covid-infections-increase-after-each-vaccine-data-shows/
https://www.dcclothesline.com/2022/12/13/covid-jab-spike-proteins-cause-lymphocytes-to-chew-a-hole-in-the-aorta-warns-dr-cole/
