(03-16-2021, 11:58 AM)Au165 Wrote: It is not authoritarian to protect the population from the selfish. It is actually the job of the government to do such things. 

In 1905 when Jacobson vs Mass has heard the death per 100k for smallpox was about 3 and some change. That was deemed unacceptable and so a fine was implemented against those who would not get vaccinated. The justices believed that "the right to preserve life is the most sacred right of man". In comparison, our death per 100k in regards to COVID is about 163 and change and it would reason that the right of those who could be impacted by lack of vaccinations have a right to life as well. 

(03-16-2021, 12:13 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It's just authoritarianism you agree with, which is a major problem in this country.  We decry authoritarianism until it's something we agree with.  Involuntary sterilization was also found constitutional using this very case.

Thurgood Marshall said it best.  If only I  could find that quote.

(03-16-2021, 12:23 PM)Au165 Wrote: By that definition every law is authoritarianism. It's kind of en vogue to claim authoritarianism whenever you don't agree with something. 

As to the Buck decision, it is pretty commonly held that the misapplication of this case was a gross misapplication of precedent. Since then though Jacobson has been used courts of all political make-ups to justify compulsory vaccinations in various states. 

(03-16-2021, 12:47 PM)michaelsean Wrote: No I claim authoritarianism when it's authoritarianism.The left has been claiming authoritarianism the last four years.  I guess that's who you are referring to. Most laws don't mandate you do something merely because you exist.  

(03-16-2021, 11:58 AM)Au165 Wrote: It is not authoritarian to protect the population from the selfish. It is actually the job of the government to do such things. 

In 1905 when Jacobson vs Mass has heard the death per 100k for smallpox was about 3 and some change. That was deemed unacceptable and so a fine was implemented against those who would not get vaccinated. The justices believed that "the right to preserve life is the most sacred right of man". In comparison, our death per 100k in regards to COVID is about 163 and change and it would reason that the right of those who could be impacted by lack of vaccinations have a right to life as well. 

(03-16-2021, 02:52 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Except the "vaccine" does not keep you from getting or passing covid.

(03-16-2021, 03:01 PM)Au165 Wrote: It is in fact a vaccine, I am not sure why you put quotes around the word. 

As to the rest, new data shows that the Pfizer vaccine is about 94% effective in preventing the transmission of COVID. It is assumed Moderna will be similar, but J&J could be different without more testing simply because it's a different technology. As to it not keeping you from getting it, if it eliminates most all of the symptoms involved then it has effectively made getting it ( the virus) moot. There are dormant viruses that live in people every day but without symptoms, no one really gets too concerned about them. 

(03-16-2021, 03:05 PM)GMDino Wrote: Every day I'm amazed by people who just either make stuff up or believe whatever they want devoid of any facts or research.

Add in the inability to admit they might not not know something, or be wrong, and this is why I'm sure we will be seeing the disease around for longer than we should.

(03-16-2021, 03:38 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Uh-huh.  Definition of vaccine includes "provides immunity".  So once you get the "vaccine" you are immune?  Nope.

(03-16-2021, 03:40 PM)Au165 Wrote: This feels like something you read on Facebook, did you read this on Facebook?

(03-16-2021, 03:40 PM)Au165 Wrote: This feels like something you read on Facebook, did you read this on Facebook?

(03-16-2021, 03:45 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: So you guys think we should have a forced "vaccine" because 500K elderly and immune compromised people have died over the last 16 months?

Forced "vaccine" that has been out for 2.5 months and the human population are the guinea pigs?

HARD PASS!

(03-16-2021, 03:45 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: That is actually in the definition of the word vaccine.

(03-16-2021, 03:45 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: So you guys think we should have a forced "vaccine" because 500K elderly and immune compromised people have died over the last 16 months?

Forced "vaccine" that has been out for 2.5 months and the human population are the guinea pigs?

HARD PASS!

(03-16-2021, 03:47 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Of course nobody thinks you should be forced to be vaccinated.

We just don't want your diseased asses hanging out with the rest of the population. Like lepers.

(03-16-2021, 03:47 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote:
Of course nobody thinks you should be forced to be vaccinated.

We just don't want your diseased asses hanging out with the rest of the population. Like lepers.

(03-16-2021, 03:49 PM)Au165 Wrote: The definitions is actually... 


a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease.


The reason I asked if he got it from Facebook is rather than recognize that it is a substance producing antibodies that provide immunity, even if not complete immunity, to a disease they focus on "immunity" as an absolute. In reality, it is a vaccine and I am going to side with the thousands of experts that label it as such over Facebook doctors trying to play contrarian. 

1. a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease.
   "there is no vaccine against the virus"
   • COMPUTING
     a program designed to detect computer viruses and inactivate them.