Next? Slapping fines on the unvaccinated

inertia

Super Member
The other vaccines do exactly the same thing. They are manufactured differently, but work in the same way, by causing they body to produce the spike protein which allows your immune system to react to them. Here is the information on the J&J vaccine, from the CDC:


Take note of the main ingredient and its purpose.
  • Recombinant, replication-incompetent Ad26 vector, encoding a stabilized variant of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike (S) protein
  • Provides instructions the body uses to build a harmless piece of a protein from the virus that causes COVID-19. This protein causes an immune response that helps protect the body from getting sick with COVID-19 in the future.

If people refuse to take "other vaccines" should they be fined until compliance is verified?

___
 

inertia

Super Member
I don't exist for the well being of the community. When did it become my responsibility to keep you safe? If your vaccine is so effective why do you care if I get it? Oh that's right because it doesn't work.

Should you be fined for not taking a vaccine, even though you believe it does not work?

No golden rule for you, right?

___
 

Yakuda

Well-known member
This part of the conversation belongs to a thread about misinformation. Please stick with the OP - fines on unvaccinated - thanks.
I disagree. You want to fine me for refusing to take a supposed vaccine that doesn't work and I should just shut? I don't think so.
 

CrowCross

Super Member
Please try and stick to the topic of the OP. Fines on the unvaccinated. Thanks (y)
The answer is NO FINES. Why? Because of the reasons I presented. Why should the unvaxxed be fined because they don't want the spike proteins traveling theought their body?
 

Michael R2

Well-known member
If people refuse to take "other vaccines" should they be fined until compliance is verified?

___
At this point, fines may well be the best way to get some people to take the vaccines. I don't think they should be financially devastating, but they would have to be something more than inconvenient.
 

CrowCross

Super Member
his is not remotely gene therapy, which is a term describing methods that will actually alter a specific gene in the body with the goal of correcting a genetic disease.
At that point I pretty much stopped reading your post. It is a gene therapy. Your cells read the genetic code and produce the spikes...
 

inertia

Super Member
I disagree. You want to fine me for refusing to take a supposed vaccine that doesn't work and I should just shut? I don't think so.

Actually, I find it distasteful and the concept of fining on healthcare issues rubs me the wrong way. That said, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of fines in history.

Their reasoning is a good argument against my personal preferences here. ( got Golden Rule? )

___
 

inertia

Super Member
At this point, fines may well be the best way to get some people to take the vaccines. I don't think they should be financially devastating, but they would have to be something more than inconvenient.

The Supreme Court agrees with your assessment.

___
 

Howie

Well-known member
Greece: A "health fee" for anyone over 60 that is not vaccinated
Austria: Restrict movement of all unvaccinated people - violation costs up to $4000
Italy : Tests required every 48 hours for unvaccinated at their expense

Meanwhile, in the United States, District Judge Terry Doughty in Monroe, Louisiana "blocked the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) from enforcing vaccine mandates among health care workers until legal challenges are resolved". Some are seeking religious exemptions as a potential loophole to prevent the enforcement of any mandatory vaccination laws. Others are simply refusing to be vaccinated altogether.

Historically:

"In 1901 a deadly smallpox epidemic tore through the Northeast, prompting the Boston and Cambridge boards of health to order the vaccination of all residents. But some refused to get the shot, claiming the vaccine order violated their personal liberties under the Constitution.

One of those holdouts, a Swedish-born pastor named Henning Jacobson, took his anti-vaccine crusade all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The nation's top justices issued a landmark 1905 ruling that legitimized the authority of states to “reasonably” infringe upon personal freedoms during a public health crisis by issuing a fine to those who refused vaccination."

View attachment 2354

"But while the Cambridge vaccine order was compulsory, it wasn’t a “forced” vaccination. People like Jacobson who refused to get vaccinated faced a $5 fine, the equivalent of nearly $150 today. On July 17, 1902, Dr. Spencer issued a criminal complaint against Jacobson and other anti-vaccine activists to collect that $5 fine."

___
🙄 don't live in the US, live abroad. Pay as many fines as you'd like.
 

Howie

Well-known member
I understand that one of the airlines is charging unvaccinated employees an extra $200/month for healthcare insurance. Seems to me that is an appropriate path to take. If smokers can be charged extra, why not the unvaccinated?
The vaccinated should be charged as well. It doesn't work.
 

inertia

Super Member
Loving your neighbor is warning them about the effect of the jab on the human body.

..and to prevent misinformation - protecting others, even your perceived enemies. Jab spikes are not contagious. Fines can feel contagious!

___
 

CrowCross

Super Member
More history:

"Jacobson had argued that the Massachusetts law requiring mandatory vaccination was a violation of due process under the 14th Amendment, particularly the right “to live and work where he will” under the precedent of Allgeyer v. Lousiana (1897), a case that found that a state law preventing certain out-of-state insurance corporations from conducting business in the state was unconstitutional restriction of freedom of contract under the 14th Amendment. Harlan answered that while the Court had protected such liberty, a citizen:

[M]ay be compelled, by force if need be, against his will and without regard to his personal wishes or his pecuniary interests, or even his religious or political convictions, to take his place in the ranks of the army of his country and risk the chance of being shot down in its defense. It is not, therefore, true that the power of the public to guard itself against imminent danger depends in every case involving the control of one's body upon his willingness to submit to reasonable regulations established by the constituted authorities, under the sanction of the State, for the purpose of protecting the public collectively against such danger.”

___

For further detail - reference: Interactive Constitution
" to submit to reasonable regulations established by the constituted authorities,"

It is not reasonable to force someone to submit to experimental gene therapy...especially when they know what the jab can do you you...and...when they now know it doesn't work very well.
 

Howie

Well-known member
T
At this point, fines may well be the best way to get some people to take the vaccines. I don't think they should be financially devastating, but they would have to be something more than inconvenient.
He vaccinations don't work., and besides, the variants are getting weaker.
 
Top