Next? Slapping fines on the unvaccinated

4Him

Administrator
Staff member
Since everyone was wearing a mask without exception, now common airport and airline protocols are within a company's rights to enforce.

- Fines are draconian and sad.

___
They’ve been “enforcing” masks…but that’s not what I asked about.
The US seems to be the only place refusing to recognize natural immunity. My goodness, even Germany recognizes NI and treats those with it as vaxxed.
 

inertia

Super Member
They’ve been “enforcing” masks…but that’s not what I asked about.
The US seems to be the only place refusing to recognize natural immunity. My goodness, even Germany recognizes NI and treats those with it as vaxxed.

...as it should.

___
 

4Him

Administrator
Staff member
They were over a weight/size limit. Also, their backsides didn't fit properly.

___
Actually I was talking about health care costs. There are some wanna be commies on here that think the unvaxxed should be charged more and/or denied health care altogether…..
 

Harry Leggs

Super Member
Taking a military perspective

Treating the wounded (infected) is a necessary part of warfare, but by itself, it will never provide a strategic advantage because the tactic is localized and purely defensive. Still, treatment has to work if the goal is to win. To win - a strategic and aggressive advantage is required against the enemy (COVID-19), especially when the enemy already has an advantage. Anticipating the enemy's next move is critical. Historically, vaccination strategy mitigates the enemy's expected aggression while minimizing wounded people and simultaneously reducing its effectiveness in its next attack.

At the same time, I stressed that the appropriate goal of public health policy is to minimize all harms, not simply to stop COVID-19 at all costs. Treatments, including emergency care, for the most serious illnesses were also missed. Half of cancer patients deferred their chemotherapy. An estimated 80 percent of brain surgery cases were skipped. Up to half of acute stroke and heart attack patients missed their only chances for treatment, some dying and many now facing permanent disability. Most cancer screenings were skipped. Meanwhile there was tremendous harm from closing schools, shuttering businesses, and confining people to their homes—and all these harms were worse for lower-income families. All this was already shown by the data. Why in the world was it being ignored, literally denied, by the experts we were relying on to guide our nation?

Atlas, Scott W.. A Plague Upon Our House: My Fight at the Trump White House to Stop COVID from Destroying America (p. 44). Bombardier Books. Kindle Edition.

Reassuring the public about re-entry requires repeating the facts—what we know—about the threat and who it targets. By now, multiple studies from Europe, Japan, and the US all suggest that the overall fatality rate** is far lower than early estimates, perhaps below 0.1 to 0.4%, i.e., ten to forty times lower than estimates that motivated extreme isolation. And we also now know who to protect, because this disease—by the evidence—is not equally dangerous across the population. In Detroit’s Oakland County, 75 percent of deaths were in those over 70; 91 percent

were in people over 60, similar to what was noted in New York. And younger, healthier people have virtually zero risk of death and little risk of serious disease—as I have noted before, under one percent of New York City’s hospitalizations have been patients under 18 years of age, and less than one percent of deaths at any age are in the absence of underlying conditions.

Atlas, Scott W.. A Plague Upon Our House: My Fight at the Trump White House to Stop COVID from Destroying America (p. 45). Bombardier Books. Kindle Edition.

** WHO projected fatality rate of 3.4%


WHO estimates global mortality rate for coronavirus is 3.4%​

 
Last edited:

Yakuda

Well-known member
The obese affect no one but themselves, while the unvaccinated incubate and spread an infectious disease.
But the jabbed don't incubate and spread covid? Once again you make it nearly impossible to take you seriously.
 

CrowCross

Super Member
Vaccine protections wane for multiple vaccines.
It is a minor inconvenience to get a booster. Just as it is a minor inconvenience to get a yearly flu shot.
I don't want nor need the "minor inconvenience" of spike proteins flowing through my blood and attacking my body organs.
 

inertia

Super Member
There is no difference between someone who has never been vaccinated and someone who has yet to receive their second booster shot. They will both be penalized in exactly the same way, e.g. refused service, etc.

That kind of hard-nosed enforcement is too far.

___
 

inertia

Super Member
At the same time, I stressed that the appropriate goal of public health policy is to minimize all harms, not simply to stop COVID-19 at all costs. Treatments, including emergency care, for the most serious illnesses were also missed. Half of cancer patients deferred their chemotherapy. An estimated 80 percent of brain surgery cases were skipped. Up to half of acute stroke and heart attack patients missed their only chances for treatment, some dying and many now facing permanent disability. Most cancer screenings were skipped. Meanwhile there was tremendous harm from closing schools, shuttering businesses, and confining people to their homes—and all these harms were worse for lower-income families. All this was already shown by the data. Why in the world was it being ignored, literally denied, by the experts we were relying on to guide our nation?

Atlas, Scott W.. A Plague Upon Our House: My Fight at the Trump White House to Stop COVID from Destroying America (p. 44). Bombardier Books. Kindle Edition.

Excellent points. 🤓

One-time events that may occur in hundred-year cycles are notoriously difficult for designing backup contingencies. However, I'm thinking that the world has learned many lessons from the hard times we all experienced recently.

"Minimizing all harms" from unknown future catastrophic events ( an asteroid impact perhaps ) feels like a very tall order.

Reassuring the public about re-entry requires repeating the facts—what we know—about the threat and who it targets.

Agreed.

This strategy should work unless vaccine-resistant mutations prevent replication of the catastrophes experienced recently. In this scenario, the targets of this new threat may not be as age selective and even more aggressive.

By now, multiple studies from Europe, Japan, and the US all suggest that the overall fatality rate** is far lower than early estimates, perhaps below 0.1 to 0.4%, i.e., ten to forty times lower than estimates that motivated extreme isolation. And we also now know who to protect, because this disease—by the evidence—is not equally dangerous across the population. In Detroit’s Oakland County, 75 percent of deaths were in those over 70; 91 percent

were in people over 60, similar to what was noted in New York. And younger, healthier people have virtually zero risk of death and little risk of serious disease—as I have noted before, under one percent of New York City’s hospitalizations have been patients under 18 years of age, and less than one percent of deaths at any age are in the absence of underlying conditions.

Atlas, Scott W.. A Plague Upon Our House: My Fight at the Trump White House to Stop COVID from Destroying America (p. 45). Bombardier Books. Kindle Edition.

Undoubtedly, knowing who to protect is as critical as providing therapeutic medications, cyclical testing, and vaccines for everyone that wants them. Of course "who to protect" includes lower-income countries as well as our own low-income communities.

Even if we know who to protect, forcing working therapies and vaccines on recalcitrant individuals may present a no-win scenario for nearby community spread.

___
 

Howie

Well-known member
Excellent points. 🤓

One-time events that may occur in hundred-year cycles are notoriously difficult for designing backup contingencies. However, I'm thinking that the world has learned many lessons from the hard times we all experienced recently.

"Minimizing all harms" from unknown future catastrophic events ( an asteroid impact perhaps ) feels like a very tall order.



Agreed.

This strategy should work unless vaccine-resistant mutations prevent replication of the catastrophes experienced recently. In this scenario, the targets of this new threat may not be as age selective and even more aggressive.



Undoubtedly, knowing who to protect is as critical as providing therapeutic medications, cyclical testing, and vaccines for everyone that wants them. Of course "who to protect" includes lower-income countries as well as our own low-income communities.

Even if we know who to protect, forcing working therapies and vaccines on recalcitrant individuals may present a no-win scenario for nearby community spread.

___
Ah, 20 somethings ...
 

BMS

Well-known member
So we all have to wear masks in certain confined spaces, but not other confined spaces, and we will get fined if we dont because we need to protect the NHS which is even more short staffed now because they have sacked staff for not getting jabbed.

I see.
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
Actually I was talking about health care costs. There are some wanna be commies on here that think the unvaxxed should be charged more and/or denied health care altogether…..
Tide is turning, watched Governor Abbott from Texas tonight on Fox, they have no mandates whatsoever, mask, vaccines, nothing, and they are seeing the lowest numbers in the country

It appears corporations are on the bandwagon, 70 large corps are moving to Texas in the first part of next year, Tesla and Samsung to mention a few $Billions$ in jobs and revenue for Texas, Florida is seeing exactly the same

Why Silicon Valley Companies Are Moving to Texas

They are fleeing high taxes, expensive housing, and governmental regulations

Updated September 10, 2021
 
Last edited:
Top