General COVID-19 Topic

[ncates00]

4 minutes ago, iacas said:

Very few religions say "don't accept science or modern medicine at all."

This demonstrates a clear lack of knowledge as to how religion is addressed at law. It’s not about how many religions do something, validity/truth/logic of beliefs, nor whether the religion is recognized, mainstream, etc., because of separation of church and state. The question is about the sincerity of such belief. One may have a sincere belief against vaccines (even if unfounded, and in our minds, dumb). Therefore, if the vetting process finds a sincerely held belief, then reasonable accommodations may be made.
 

As I told the other guys earlier, read up on the process online; there’s plenty of legitimate articles out there, probably legal alerts from reputable firms, too. 

For instance, there’s a large black population who are rejecting vaccination due to last wrongs. Screw those concerns? In their mind, and maybe in fact, they have reason to pause, but science also tells us not to fear and to take it for the better of all of us. 
 

By the way, I’m not trying to “get” anyone here. I’m just saying there’s more to it than we think. Besides, @iacas, you should recall not long ago I lamented masking and wanted mandatory vaccination, to which you also cautioned me, despite, I think, understanding my point. 

[GolfLug]

@ncates00, you keep waxing about what law can and cannot do as far as enforcing vaccination against religious reasons where it is abundantly clear that the vaccine cannot be mandated by law in general. If it were, there would have been one already or at least in due process. I am, as are many on this board acutely aware of due process and a hundred nuances when making something law, obvious gains or not. I don't think you have to have a law degree to know that. 

And yes, screw religious reasons (sincerity of belief or not) for not accepting vaccination. Never mind the irony of which is ignoring the obvious greater good for all of us vs. their personal 'piety'. That's my belief.   

 

[ncates00]

18 minutes ago, GolfLug said:

where it is abundantly clear that the vaccine cannot be mandated by law in general.

This is simply not true. The fed likely has authority to do so. Politically unpopular, though, for sure, if not on medical grounds then certainly “use of power” grounds. 

 

20 minutes ago, GolfLug said:

If it were, there would have been one already or at least in due process.

That would be a big “no”. Poor reasoning there, I’m afraid. Just because one can do something, doesn’t mean they should or will. There are many moving parts to this, and a flexing of federal power isn’t something to be done lightly, even if many of us would agree with said flexing. 

[ncates00]

Bottom line, and I’m done: going back to your original post, you said refusing was just pushing an agenda. My whole point has been “no, it’s not just that.” It may be with some. Sure. But, not to everyone. Some people, whether we agree or not, have serious reservations. The reservations may be in different forms: being uneducated on the matter, general disposition of not trusting the government (like the black people example I gave earlier), religious reasons, etc. Again, in no way am I agreeing with these positions, as I want people to be vaccinated; but, I do disagree with your original statement, even as clarified. 
 

 

[chspeed]

49 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

Politically unpopular, though, for sure

Actually - it's very popular, at least in most polls.

Axios-Ipsos poll: Six out of 10 voters back Biden vaccine mandates

---

Requiring shots or weekly testing is embraced by eight in 10 Democrats — and just three in 10 Republicans.

 

2 hours ago, ncates00 said:

Therefore, if the vetting process finds a sincerely held belief, then reasonable accommodations may be made.

You obviously know it's not that simple. Interpretations of laws are based on circumstances. If I sincerely believe that my deity wants me to kill others, reasonable accommodations, hopefully, will not be made.

2 hours ago, ncates00 said:

For instance, there’s a large black population who are rejecting vaccination due to last wrongs. Screw those concerns?

Yes. This has been addressed here before, but there are times in society at which certain considerations are supplanted by the circumstances, be it war, famine, etc. Sometimes we regret these decisions, sometimes we don't. But the fact is that we don't always treat laws the same way.

[iacas]

4 hours ago, ncates00 said:

This demonstrates a clear lack of knowledge as to how religion is addressed at law.

I wasn't addressing it at law.

Duh.

4 hours ago, ncates00 said:

As I told the other guys earlier, read up on the process online; there’s plenty of legitimate articles out there, probably legal alerts from reputable firms, too. 

No thanks. As I said, laws exist for reasons beyond the laws themselves and what they do.

4 hours ago, ncates00 said:

By the way, I’m not trying to “get” anyone here.

No, you're just being a lawyer, and nobody likes lawyers. We're not really discussing the law here. But hey, when all you've got is a hammer…

2 hours ago, ncates00 said:

Bottom line, and I’m done: going back to your original post

He already clarified that "original post," and I've already told you to move on from the "original post" because of those clarifications.

[ncates00]

1 hour ago, chspeed said:

You obviously know it's not that simple. Interpretations of laws are based on circumstances. If I sincerely believe that my deity wants me to kill others, reasonable accommodations, hopefully, will not be made.

I said I’m done.
 

Besides, what I said is the process in a nutshell with regards to the federal religious exemptions, which is part of what I was talking about. Clearly, you have t read about them, and instead built up a big strawman. 
 

Ok, like I said, I’m done. 

[iacas]

1 minute ago, ncates00 said:

I said I’m done.

So then be done.

2 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

Besides, what I said is the process in a nutshell with regards to the federal religious exemptions, which is part of what I was talking about. Clearly, you have t read about them, and instead built up a big strawman. 

🤦‍♂️

[Wanzo]

It will be interesting how things play out in the NBA with teams like ny requiring vaccine (local mandate) and Kyrie not vaccinated yet.  Might not get paid if doesn’t play.  Then guys like porter jr. who just signed a 200mm deal in Denver saying he won’t get vaccine.  But being in Denver he can play except in cities that require it, I think.  I doubt porter gives in.  He’s from the town I live in and I know his story pretty well.  
 

Nuggets' Michael Porter Jr.: "I don't feel comfortable" taking vaccine

---

Michael Porter Jr. isn’t comfortable with taking the vaccine and is adamant there shouldn’t be a mandate for...

 

[dennyjones]

The Red Wings have one player that is against the vaccine.   He won't be able to play in Canada.   He doesn't care.

[colin007]

6 hours ago, ncates00 said:

Unless the person has a valid medical reason to not get the vaccine, such as may have a severe allergic reaction to the vaccine,

My best friend is at risk for severe reactions, his doctor told him it was worth the risk and to get the shot

[dennyjones]

Michigan had over 3300 people contract the virus in the last two days.  There were 50 real deaths (50 additional medical records reviews).  

That reads funny  "real deaths" but the message is serious.  

[boogielicious]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

and nobody likes lawyers

Well my wife’s a lawyer! But in her defense, she’s on my side. The religious reasoning for not getting the vaccine is pure BS. Unless you are a Christian Scientist who has always maintained avoidance of medical treatment, you are just blowing smoke. It is politically driven and they seem to rather want to die than help their fellow man. Absolutely pathetic.

[dennyjones]

5 minutes ago, dennyjones said:

Michigan had over 3300 people contract the virus in the last two days.  There were 50 real deaths (50 additional medical records reviews).  

That reads funny  "real deaths" but the message is serious.  

I was incorrect.   The two day number was 6,773!

[iacas]

Molnupiravir, a drug developed by Merck, could be the first oral antiviral medicine for covid-19 - The Washington Post

---

The drug, molnupiravir, could be the first oral antiviral medication for covid-19.

This won't help to keep increasing vaccination rates, but it'll be funny to see people who wouldn't get the (fully approved) "experimental" vaccine rushing to get the EUA pill. 😛

Also, halving the rate isn't zeroing out the rate.

I got my booster shot two days ago, Thursday. I didn't sleep well that night (or the night before) so my Friday was a bit of a slog, but I feel fine today. I blame the lack of sleep more than anything, as I was already starting to feel not great Thursday morning, and I worked all day Thursday before sleeping only about three hours Thursday night.

[imsys0042]

This didn’t have to happen.  

 

[billchao]

On 9/29/2021 at 3:55 PM, GolfLug said:

it is abundantly clear that the vaccine cannot be mandated by law in general

I’m no legal expert, but afaik Jacobson v. Massachusetts states otherwise.

[Wanzo]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

 

Molnupiravir, a drug developed by Merck, could be the first oral antiviral medicine for covid-19 - The Washington Post

---

The drug, molnupiravir, could be the first oral antiviral medication for covid-19.

 

Great news.