Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Church Members in California Seeking "Religious Exemption" Forms for Vaccine, Church Saying "Nope."


smac97

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

One of my stake's bishops posted this in the stake bishops WhatsApp group. The tune of "Families Can Be Together Forever". 

That's pretty funny.

However, the tune is actually to "The Prophet Said to Plant a Garden." (link

My inner music Nazi can now rest. ;) 

 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Yes, it's an idiotic claim, about making them Jews in the Third Reich. So what?

This doesn't make forcible vaccination any less of a violation of free will, however. You can make all the arguments you want about herd immunity, but herd immunity does not require 100% immunity. And why is it silly to compare forcible vaccination with internment camps? Both are compulsions ordered by government. Just because one involves medication and the other relocation does not break the "compulsion" link. You think using the words "life saving medicine" is a wonderful justification. I do not. 

I seem to recall this scripture:

DC 121:39 - We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

You clearly think that holding people down while they get forcibly vaccinated is not unrighteous dominion. I disagree entirely. 

So there we are.

 

I would maintain that refusing to receive medication when that medication can end a pandemic and save lives is unrighteous dominion.

I see it as the equivalent of holding down a child while they take medicine they want to refuse because it tastes ‘icky’ and they don’t want to take it so you make them.

I realize that this may come across as paternalistic and infantilizing but if the shoe fits……….

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Such as serve a mission outside one's home nation.

Definitely!  Several countries are requiring vaccinations for certain activities.  Good of the church to think ahead of times so they are already ready.

Link to comment
On 9/11/2021 at 8:57 PM, Calm said:

How about medieval with bells or clappers too? (Though some think this was not to warn away, but because lepers often had weakened voices due to tissue damage and used such to draw attention, others consider they were used for both).

BB95yk.gif

Link to comment
On 9/14/2021 at 5:14 PM, Rain said:

I think there is a difference in what the mandates are.  For example forcing every citizen to be vaccinated is different than a hospital requiring vaccination of employees because of liability, health and safety of staff and patients and staffing issues.  So while I am not for mandates in general I think there are some reasonable times when those in command should be able to require them in order to do the activity that is involved.

I don't disagree entirely with your sentiments here, but as to reasonability.... I have reservations.

If a business decided to require a certain training class of all employees as a condition of employment, mostly but not entirely irrespective of the topic of the class, it seems to me that it would be within the rights of the business to make refusal to take the class cause for termination. It's a private business, after all. But making receiving a medical procedure a condition of employment? I'm not so keen on that. I suppose it makes a difference as to which particular medical procedure.

Just for information, I thought I would mention that my wife is nurse in Britain's National Health Service. As soon as vaccines became available, the NHS made efforts to ensure that all personnel who came into regular contact with patients had the opportunity to receive the vaccine. One of my wife's colleagues is a "refuser" when it comes to this, and has not been vaccinated. The NHS, basically a government agency, has not threatened the colleague with any disciplinary action.  It seems that the NHS is more concerned for its employees catching Covid from patients than any liability for them passing Covid along to patients (the particular individual is an operating room nurse, not a general care nurse, btw). And when it has been shown that vaccination doesn't seem to entirely prevent catching Covid, but does seem to limit the serverity of the infection... well, I'm pretty convinced we're all going to catch it, regardless. And if all of us are going to catch it regardless of vaccination, that kind of makes a mandate seem a bit overwrought.

This is a lovely topic for a discussion, since I am so conflicted over it. I come down on both sides of the argument. At the same time.

Edited by Stargazer
Link to comment
On 9/14/2021 at 5:09 AM, The Nehor said:

I would maintain that refusing to receive medication when that medication can end a pandemic and save lives is unrighteous dominion.

I see it as the equivalent of holding down a child while they take medicine they want to refuse because it tastes ‘icky’ and they don’t want to take it so you make them.

I realize that this may come across as paternalistic and infantilizing but if the shoe fits……….

For the general case, and assuming that a given medication will actually end a given pandemic, and assuming a very high death rate, I could very reluctantly close my eyes and push the button mandating it forcibly, if necessary. 

But as I have mentioned, vaccination in the case of Covid absolutely does not guarantee full immunity -- and I have relatives who have been fully vaccinated and still caught the bug, and I know of others who have as well -- I just cannot justify to myself the use of violence to mandate the treatment, especially when the global death statistic from Covid is on the order of 2%.

So, by all means, force everyone to get vaccinated at the point of a gun, despite vaccination being obviously inefficacious for prevention.

Of course, regardless of the relative smallness of the percentage, death is still a serious matter. 2% isn't much comfort to those loved ones left behind. About six months ago we lost a member of our ward to Covid-19, a man I had served with in our elders quorum presidency. But was his death due to anyone's refusal to get vaccinated? I'm pretty sure it wasn't, as at the time vaccination was in the midst of being rolled out here, and lots of people hadn't yet had the opportunity. He was around 80 years old, lived alone, and was probably socially distancing just because of his circumstances. 

 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Wrong.

Wrong about what?

Yeah, let's just run roughshod over the fact that getting vaccinated doesn't absolutely prevent one from getting infected (see CDC info HERE), nor does surviving an infection prevent reinfection (although this does seem to confer a very strong immunity from reinfection -- see Science.TheWire of India). This is most definitely different from smallpox and polio vaccinations, which practically guaranteed not ever getting infected. 

Maybe you're not "blessed" with any personally-known cases, but my step-daughter and her husband were both fully vaccinated and had been so for a good couple of months when they got Covid-19. And since they caught the virus from one of their kids, who caught it from someone at school (and everyone in the family came down with it), we stay socially-distanced from them now. You can imagine my wife's distress at not being able to closely interact with her little grandchildren. If the vaccine were as efficacious as you seem to think, she shouldn't have to worry at all, yet she does, nurse or not, because as a front-line health-care worker, she knows darned good and well that vaccination is not a guarantee.

But you can blind yourself to the facts, if you want. No skin off my nose.

From the CDC web page referenced above:

"During December 14, 2020–August 14, 2021, full vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines was 80% effective in preventing RT-PCR–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection among frontline workers, further affirming the highly protective benefit of full vaccination up to and through the most recent summer U.S. COVID-19 pandemic waves. The VE point estimates declined from 91% before predominance of the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant to 66% since the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant became predominant at the HEROES-RECOVER cohort study sites; however, this trend should be interpreted with caution because VE might also be declining as time since vaccination increases and because of poor precision in estimates due to limited number of weeks of observation and few infections among participants. As with all observational VE studies, unmeasured and residual confounding might be present. Active surveillance through the cohort is ongoing and VE estimates will be monitored continuously. Although these interim findings suggest a moderate reduction in the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in preventing infection, the sustained two thirds reduction in infection risk underscores the continued importance and benefits of COVID-19 vaccination."

Everyone should darned well get vaccinated. But you might get infected anyway. 

That's why I do not agree with forcible vaccination in the case of Covid-19.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I don't disagree entirely with your sentiments here, but as to reasonability.... I have reservations.

If a business decided to require a certain training class of all employees as a condition of employment, mostly but not entirely irrespective of the topic of the class, it seems to me that it would be within the rights of the business to make refusal to take the class cause for termination. It's a private business, after all. But making receiving a medical procedure a condition of employment? I'm not so keen on that. I suppose it makes a difference as to which particular medical procedure.

Just for information, I thought I would mention that my wife is nurse in Britain's National Health Service. As soon as vaccines became available, the NHS made efforts to ensure that all personnel who came into regular contact with patients had the opportunity to receive the vaccine. One of my wife's colleagues is a "refuser" when it comes to this, and has not been vaccinated. The NHS, basically a government agency, has not threatened the colleague with any disciplinary action.  It seems that the NHS is more concerned for its employees catching Covid from patients than any liability for them passing Covid along to patients (the particular individual is an operating room nurse, not a general care nurse, btw). And when it has been shown that vaccination doesn't seem to entirely prevent catching Covid, but does seem to limit the serverity of the infection... well, I'm pretty convinced we're all going to catch it, regardless. And if all of us are going to catch it regardless of vaccination, that kind of makes a mandate seem a bit overwrought.

This is a lovely topic for a discussion, since I am so conflicted over it. I come down on both sides of the argument. At the same time.

Hi @Raingirl! I'd be interested to hear your reason for the downvote, to cure my curiosity, if you feel so inclined. 🙂 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I don't disagree entirely with your sentiments here, but as to reasonability.... I have reservations.

If a business decided to require a certain training class of all employees as a condition of employment, mostly but not entirely irrespective of the topic of the class, it seems to me that it would be within the rights of the business to make refusal to take the class cause for termination. It's a private business, after all.

I'm not sure what you are saying here and how it really relates to getting the vaccine. 

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

But making receiving a medical procedure a condition of employment? I'm not so keen on that. I suppose it makes a difference as to which particular medical procedure.

What about other vaccines such as measles or small pox?

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Just for information, I thought I would mention that my wife is nurse in Britain's National Health Service. As soon as vaccines became available, the NHS made efforts to ensure that all personnel who came into regular contact with patients had the opportunity to receive the vaccine. One of my wife's colleagues is a "refuser" when it comes to this, and has not been vaccinated. The NHS, basically a government agency, has not threatened the colleague with any disciplinary action.  It seems that the NHS is more concerned for its employees catching Covid from patients than any liability for them passing Covid along to patients (the particular individual is an operating room nurse, not a general care nurse, btw).

I'm not sure how one would determine that the NHS has more concern for it's employees than for liability.  Either way I purposely stated 4 reasons that I could be ok with a mandate in no particular order of importance though I didn't do it clearly. 1. Liability 2. Concern for employees. 3. Concern for patients. 4. Dealing with staffing problems that arise when staff gets sick and dies.

For me this isn't a thing comparing the altruism of one organization with another, but with a private business looking at the big picture and ALL of the concerns.

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

And when it has been shown that vaccination doesn't seem to entirely prevent catching Covid, but does seem to limit the serverity of the infection...

Exactly.  Limiting death and long term health for both  employees and patients/customers.  

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

well, I'm pretty convinced we're all going to catch it, regardless. And if all of us are going to catch it regardless of vaccination, that kind of makes a mandate seem a bit overwrought.  

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

This is a lovely topic for a discussion, since I am so conflicted over it. I come down on both sides of the argument. At the same time.

When we are talking about life and death and heavy long term consequences to employees and customers, burn out in employees, the ability of the system to run well it becomes much less overwrought.  

There is also a difference in a private company making the mandate for employees and a government system doing so in a number of ways.  Comparing the NHS against a private health business doesn't really work especially since I was talking only about private businesses and am not for government mandates.

Edited by Rain
Link to comment
7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Wrong about what?

Yeah, let's just run roughshod over the fact that getting vaccinated doesn't absolutely prevent one from getting infected (see CDC info HERE), nor does surviving an infection prevent reinfection (although this does seem to confer a very strong immunity from reinfection -- see Science.TheWire of India). This is most definitely different from smallpox and polio vaccinations, which practically guaranteed not ever getting infected. 

Wrong as in that has nothing to do with what you tried to correct me with. Claiming the vaccine is not efficacious because it does not prevent all infections is disingenuous and deceptive and wrong. It is efficacious in decreasing the rate of infection (i.e. PREVENTION) AND in reducing the severity of cases if you are infected.

This comes down to “vaccine not 100% perfect, therefore huge disappointment and not worth a mandate”. I am glad we didn’t have that reaction to the polio vaccine and the measles vaccine.

7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Maybe you're not "blessed" with any personally-known cases, but my step-daughter and her husband were both fully vaccinated and had been so for a good couple of months when they got Covid-19. And since they caught the virus from one of their kids, who caught it from someone at school (and everyone in the family came down with it), we stay socially-distanced from them now. You can imagine my wife's distress at not being able to closely interact with her little grandchildren. If the vaccine were as efficacious as you seem to think, she shouldn't have to worry at all, yet she does, nurse or not, because as a front-line health-care worker, she knows darned good and well that vaccination is not a guarantee.

But you can blind yourself to the facts, if you want. No skin off my nose.

I’ve lost people I care about if that is what it takes to be able to say you are wrong.

I have never denied the facts you share. I am not sure why you assume I have. You made a stupid generalization and I called you out on it.

Link to comment
On 9/14/2021 at 6:36 PM, Rain said:

Definitely!  Several countries are requiring vaccinations for certain activities.  Good of the church to think ahead of times so they are already ready.

The church has long required vaccination for serving in developing countries for the elder's/sister's safety.  On top of regular childhood immunizations being required, missionaries going to developing countries are required to get typhoid shots, yellow fever shots, Japanese encephalitis shots, and some are required to take malaria pills daily for their entire mission.

Before Covid even existed, I had one young man come into my office who was called to Brazil.  Yellow fever and typhoid was required by the church and not by Brazil.  He had a severe needle phobia and could not go through with the vaccination.  He had to be reassigned to a state-side mission due to his inability to be vaccinated.  I felt so bad for him, but that was the right decision for the church to make.  It simply isn't worth the risk to the young man. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Wrong as in that has nothing to do with what you tried to correct me with. Claiming the vaccine is not efficacious because it does not prevent all infections is disingenuous and deceptive and wrong. It is efficacious in decreasing the rate of infection (i.e. PREVENTION) AND in reducing the severity of cases if you are infected.

This comes down to “vaccine not 100% perfect, therefore huge disappointment and not worth a mandate”. I am glad we didn’t have that reaction to the polio vaccine and the measles vaccine.

I’ve lost people I care about if that is what it takes to be able to say you are wrong.

I have never denied the facts you share. I am not sure why you assume I have. You made a stupid generalization and I called you out on it.

I was going to argue extensively with you about all this, but it seems not to be a productive activity, when all is said and done.

I do resent the accusation of disingenuousness, however. Are you sure you know what it really means? Just to lay it out, the definition I've found is as follows:

"not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does."
e.g. "he was being somewhat disingenuous as well as cynical"
synonyms: dishonest · deceitful · underhand · underhanded · duplicitous · double-dealing · two-faced · dissembling · insincere · false · lying · untruthful · mendacious · not candid · not frank · not entirely truthful · artful · cunning · crafty · wily · sly · sneaky · tricky · scheming · calculating · designing · devious · unscrupulous · economical with the truth · terminologically inexact · subtle · hollow-hearted · false-hearted · double-faced · truthless · unveracious

I have been vaccinated. I wanted to be vaccinated. I urge all others to receive the vaccination. But I truly believe, based on observation of others who have received the vaccination and have nevertheless been infected (and this is not rare), that the vaccines so far developed are not efficacious in preventing infection. Hence I won't be surprised if I get Covid-19, and do not consider the vaccines so far developed to be efficacious. Perhaps I am overstating it, and you might be more content if I modify my assertion to say that the vaccination is "insufficiently efficacious." 

Is that better? If not, fine.

And forcing people to receive the vaccine against their will is something I still oppose. Particularly so because the vaccines so far deployed are "insufficiently efficacious" -- but even if they conferred 100% reliable prevention, I would still oppose forcing people to vaccinate. Because I am 100% in favor of free will. If you want to strap people down in order to vaccinate them, go for it.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, pogi said:

It is not just about preventing "infection".  It is about preventing severe disease and death, and reducing the burden on the hospital system which is bursting at the seams and poses national health crises/threat for all of us who may need intensive care or elective surgery (which are no longer happening in many locations due to hospital burden of Covid).

You're in the same boat with The Nehor. I do not deny that there is a good purpose for vaccination. I am glad there are vaccines for this disease. I have been vaccinated. I object, however, to forced vaccination. Especially when government force is being used to enforce a government mandate. The Nehor said he was willing to have people strapped down to be vaccinated against their will, and that he would be willing in that situation to administer the vaccine himself.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Typhoid vaccine is only around 65% effective at preventing infection.  It is not required/mandated by any nation, yet the church mandates it for all missionaries serving in almost all developing countries due to the risk for the missionary.  Do you think the church is wrong for mandating this vaccine and saying "everyone should darned well get vaccinated.  But you might get infected anyway."?    

The church is perfectly within its rights to require vaccination as a condition for serving as a missionary for the church. The church will not force anyone to be vaccinated, however. Nor should it.

You and The Nehor seem to be under the misapprehension that I am an anti-vaxxer. I am not. I am opposed to compulsion. There's a difference.

 

Edited by Stargazer
Link to comment
57 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

And forcing people to receive the vaccine against their will is something I still oppose. Particularly so because the vaccines so far deployed are "insufficiently efficacious" -- but even if they conferred 100% reliable prevention, I would still oppose forcing people to vaccinate. Because I am 100% in favor of free will. If you want to strap people down in order to vaccinate them, go for it.

Whose free will takes precedence? Do vaccinated people have the right to go to public spaces where everyone is vaccinated or do unvaccinted people have the right to go wherever they want.? As a society we mutually agree to limit free will in many areas for the greater good of the community. Does society have the right to restrict the movements of people with potentially contgious diseases? Just because I think mumps are no big deal should I be able to send my children to school unvaccinated?

Should vaccinated people be compeled to sit next to unvaccinated people in a restaurant? You seem to think compulsion only applies to unvaccinated. That is simply not true.

 

And by the way, we must have different definitions for "efficacious". The numbers comparrison for severity of illness and death for the vaccinated vs the unvaccinated are staggering. It like saying seatbelts are "insufficiently efficacious" because people still get injured and die when they wear them.

Edited by CA Steve
Link to comment

The onset of the Covid pandemic precluded my returning to the US from England for my customary annual visits during 2020, but with the easing of some restrictions it became something that could be done. Accordingly, I spent a month back in Washington state during July. What I found there was the state government had eased various restrictions so as to allow people who had been fully vaccinated (2 inoculations) to enter shops and other places without the need for wearing masks. Since I left to come back to England, Washington state has gone back to requiring masks everywhere, because of Covid variants coming on the scene. When I left England for my Washington visit, England was still mandating masks and limiting public meetings. When I came back, the government here had eased those restrictions, so masks were no longer required by law, although some businesses still "urge" everyone to wear masks while indoors. I suppose, like Washington state has, the UK government will revert back to masks at some point. Seems to be what happens.

The Washington state Dept of Health website currently features a graphic that mandates mask-wearing, with the words "Everyone can get it -- everyone can spread it." Presumably this means the fully vaccinated and those who have already had Covid and have recovered (though I note that the reinfection rate is very low). The WA state DOH site also says: "Getting vaccinated is the best way to protect yourself from severe illness, hospitalization or death due to COVID-19. But because of a steep increase in disease transmission in Washington, the Secretary of Health is requiring that everyone five years of age and older wear a mask in public indoor settings and at large, outdoor events with 500 or more attendees, including sporting events, fairs, parades, and concerts, regardless of vaccination status."

I got chaff from some of you for my claim that Covid-19 vaccinations are not efficacious. Insert the qualification "sufficiently" if you want. But if vaccination were truly efficacious, then why are fully vaccinated people still required or urged to wear masks? I'm not being disingenuous when I say that I believe wholeheartedly that everyone who can be vaccinated, should get vaccinated, but if you must still wear a mask after successful vaccination, then you would be most unwise to rely upon your vaccination to save you fully. Hence, this is why I say and believe that vaccination's efficacy is very much in doubt.

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Whose free will takes precedence? Do vaccinated people have the right to go to public spaces where everyone is vaccinated or do unvaccinted people have the right to go wherever they want.? As a society we mutually agree to limit free will in many areas for the greater good of the community. Does society have the right to restrict the movements of people with potentially contgious diseases? Just because I think mumps are no big deal should I be able to send my children to school unvaccinated?

Should vaccinated people be compeled to sit next to unvaccinated people in a restaurant? You seem to think compulsion only applies to unvaccinated. That is simply not true.

Vaccinated people are already sitting next to unvaccinated people. Everywhere. Whether you're talking polio, mumps, measles, rubella, or whooping cough. Are you going to start wanting to inspect everyone's health records for necessary vaccinations everywhere you go? Require a Covid passport? 

15 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

And by the way, we must have different definitions for "efficacious". The numbers comparrison for severity of illness and death for the vaccinated vs the unvaccinated are staggering. It like saying seatbelts are "insufficiently efficacious" because people still get injured and die when they wear them.

You may be required to wear a mask regardless of vaccination status. That says to me that the vaccination may be inefficacious. Just because it may be inefficacious is not a reason to not get vaccinated. Just because people are killed because of seatbelt use in automobile accidents is no rational reason not to wear a seatbelt. 99% of the time, seatbelts save lives. But your comparison is apples to oranges. Seatbelts are not vaccinations, any more than automobile accidents are Covid infections.

The vaccines for Covid-19 provide some protection. I do not argue with this. But for government to forcibly inoculate those who do not want it is morally wrong. In my humble opinion. 

I'll say it again: I'm not an anti-vaxxer. I'm anti-compulsion, particularly anti-compulsion-by-government. Do you get it, now? Argue in favor of getting vaccination all you want: I'll agree with you wholeheartedly. Argue that people must be compelled to be vaccinated, and I will disagree. 

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

It seems though, that it is the vaccinated who are keeping the pandemic alive.  Do the rights of the individual to not be vaccinated trump the rights of the community to be rid of the virus?  How about the rights of those who cannot be vaccinated because of age or other health reasons? 

I think you meant that it is the unvaccinated who are keeping the pandemic alive. My stepdaughter and her husband got Covid after being vaccinated when their not-yet-vaccinated children went back to school and brought it home with them. Whole family, from age 2 to 10 got it. 

I agree that everyone who can be vaccinated should get vaccinated. I still disagree that those who do not want it should be forced to be vaccinated. 

Edited by Stargazer
Link to comment
49 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

You're in the same boat with The Nehor. I do not deny that there is a good purpose for vaccination. I am glad there are vaccines for this disease. I have been vaccinated. I object, however, to forced vaccination. Especially when government force is being used to enforce a government mandate. The Nehor said he was willing to have people strapped down to be vaccinated against their will, and that he would be willing in that situation to administer the vaccine himself.

The church is perfectly within its rights to require vaccination as a condition for serving as a missionary for the church. The church will not force anyone to be vaccinated, however. Nor should it.

You and The Nehor seem to be under the misapprehension that I am an anti-vaxxer. I am not. I am opposed to compulsion. There's a difference.

I never thought that you were antivax.  I am just seeking understanding on your line of thinking in regards to mandates.  I am generally opposed to vaccine mandates (without the ability for waivers)  in most cases, believe it or not.  I am a strong advocate for informed consent.  I think some of the vaccines being mandated for school are pretty ridiculous - others make a lot of sense.  In relation to a world-wide pandemic that is destroying our healthcare system on a national-scale, I think the government has every right and responsibility to mandate it.  It is not without precedence.  This is a national emergency.   I am a lover of liberty, but not absolute liberty.  I am generally opposed to compulsion.  But I think there are situations where we can all agree that government compulsion is justified to protect the public.  This is one of those situations.

There is a subtle play by many to down-play the virus in an effort to make any government mandates/shut-downs seem overly excessive and unjustifiable.  I don't think these people are giving a fair assessment of the virus and are thus not giving a fair assessment of the mandates.  I guarantee that at some level of threat, we would all (or the vast majority) support mandates.  I think it is a matter of how we assess the threat more than it is a matter of liberty/compulsion. 

 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, pogi said:

I never thought that you were antivax.  I am just seeking understanding on your line of thinking in regards to mandates.  I am generally opposed to vaccine mandates (without the ability for waivers)  in most cases, believe it or not.  I am a strong advocate for informed consent.  I think some of the vaccines being mandated for school are pretty ridiculous - others make a lot of sense.  In relation to a world-wide pandemic that is destroying our healthcare system on a national-scale, I think the government has every right and responsibility to mandate it.  It is not without precedence.  This is a national emergency.   I am a lover of liberty, but not absolute liberty.  I am generally opposed to compulsion.  But I think there are situations where we can all agree that government compulsion is justified to protect the public.  This is one of those situations.

It might be. I'm not convinced. I live in England, and the healthcare system here has been tested, surely, but it is far from destroyed. My wife works in a hospital which revamped some of its spaces so as to handle a feared overload of Covid cases requiring hospitalization. The feared overload didn't occur, though at first things seemed headed that way. Currently they have 20 cases, with two in ICU. The served population is about 110,000. 

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

There is a subtle play by many to down-play the virus in an effort to make any government mandates/shut-downs seem overly excessive and unjustifiable.  I don't think these people are giving a fair assessment of the virus and are thus not giving a fair assessment of the mandates.  I guarantee that at some level of threat, we would all (or the vast majority) support mandates.  I think it is a matter of how we assess the threat more than it is a matter of liberty/compulsion. 

Threat assessment and liberty/compulsion evaluation must go hand in hand, I feel. You're worried about one side of it, while others worry about the other side. The public danger from the virus versus the public danger from governmental overreach. Are those who assess the threat of governmental overreach as high without grounds for that assessment? Can we just trust the government without limit? That's what some seem to think. I am not so sanguine.

I've had friends die from this virus. I have relatives who got sick from it. Despite being vaccinated I do not believe I am immune. I am mainly careful about wearing a mask, and disinfecting my hands when out in public. But I do not believe we should go off the deep end about it all. Like some seem to want.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...