@bluejay While generally I agree with you the military does not, and should not, have their free will. They forfeit that when they sign up. Its why they can put you in jail just for quiting the military (AWOL) without their permission.
You can have a fighting force entering a foreign country and being able to be wiped out simply from its native diseases. This is doubly true when you consider the close-nit nature of the military, disease would spread like wildfire.
@icedquinn it literallys is. That is why we can do druug tests without informing the patient whats in the drug. They agree to take the drug without knowing ahead of time what it is.
@icedquinn@blob.cat @freemo@qoto.org @bluejay@qoto.org i mean it has been fully FDA approved which is why they are mandating it now (at least Pfizer version has)
@icedquinn@blob.cat @freemo@qoto.org @bluejay@qoto.org nobody's mandating vaccines for the entirety of the public. it's only schoolchildren who go to actual public schools in some states and perhaps businesses and other public officies, which is quite frankly 100% reasonable as long as they allow medical exemptions from doctors (allergies, high risk, etc etc)
I am not against the vaccine, but no that is completely unacceptable for countless reasons.
You would think we learned our lesson when private businesses started doing this with HIV way back in the day. Those with HIV were barred from jobs, and those deemed to be a high risk for catching HIV (gays mostly) were barred under the same reasoning.
The pattern we are seeing here is frighteningly similar.
It also means that indirectly you are effectively required to expose private medical information. Say you have cancer, or HIV and that is your reason for not getting the vaccine. Now you are in a position where you have to prove to your employer that you have a medical exemption and expose to your employer that you have a private disability and effectively loose your right to keeping your disability private... we long since learned our lessons as to why that is unacceptable and here we are, doing it again.
@freemo@qoto.org @icedquinn@blob.cat @bluejay@qoto.org tbh I agree
my problem is people making their decision off of dumb baseless facts instead of informed deicions which is probably a fault of our abysmal education system
Yes, that is my problem to. But as frustrating as it is that doesnt give us the right to try to strong arm them. The solution is education, not force.
I would argue that force is far less effective as well. There was a lot of resistance to vaccines at various times in history that was overcome effectively with education. But when you use force you loose trust and ultimately increase the resistance to it rather than fixing the problem.
You will never win an argument or convince someone of the truth by punching them in the face repeatedly until they agree.
I'm not really sure it is. Every conservative and their mother has so little trust right now half of them dont even think COVID exists and are so deep int he conspiracy theory BS its getting absurd. This is a relatively new thing and it is the direct result of how the liberals are trying to strong-arm people who disagree with them, it has caused this resistance in the first place.
I can guarantee you if the liberals actually tried to play nice there would be far less resistance to a vaccine.
The government has nothing to do with it. Countless of scientists, non government related, have isolated covid and produced reports about it. The fact that the government isnt cooperative in any respect is hardly evidence of that.
So yea that one is completely absurd.
Can you list even a single case where a scientist who claimed to isolate it was required under subponea to provide proof od isolation and couldnt?
National health authorities, depending on whom you are refering, dont necceseraly have isolates on hand. Nor would they necceseraly be obligated to provide it, depending on the reasoning.
Who exactly was sued, and under what conditions was it refused.. be specific cite the situation and we can discuss.
It is only "weird" if you watch some concervative conspiracy theory discredited media that describes the case in a way that isnt remotely accurate.
When you actually review the case there is nothing remotely weird about it. The man wasnt suing the government and demanding an isolate, he was being fined and when he attempted to demand an isolate that had no relevance to the case in question of any kind, the court threw out his request as not being relevant to the case.
So it makes perfect sense and nothing remotely odd about it. So anyone who actually bothers to think there is some legitimacy to it is either watching conspiracy theory nonsense and repeating it or just is clueless himself.
Review the journals where isolation was attempted and see if there are any credible publications from established experts where they concluding that the COVID virus could not be isolated.
Hint: While you will find countless experiments successfully isolating COVID you wont find a single one that concluded they were unable to isolate COVID.
You look for both, we already have countless proof positives in all the credibly written papers that have isolated it independently. The lack of a single paper failing to do so also gives a lack of negative proof.
Well a person cant test it themselves because they arent intelligent to know how even if they had the equipment... even a court case would be trusting experts. If the government said "sure ill prove it to you" and brought a vial of it to the court case, what then? It would require an expert to verify it... you'd still be relying on an expert.
It is literally impossible not to rely on an expert, or be an expert yourself.
But when 100% of credible experts all agree and 0% of them find contradiction, then you either need to accept what the experts say, learn to become an expert yourself, or be an idiot who believes in unfounded conspiracy theories... there isnt a 4th option.
No I literally gave multiple solutions... either you arent stupid and therefore capable of proving it through your own expertise and/or ability to evaluate the expertise of others... or you rely on the expert consensus... all of those are valid answers.
You basically said "well what if you arent an expert and dont trust experts"... thats like saying "What if someone os am idiot and beleives stupid things without evidence, what evidence can you provide them to prove it to them"... the answer is, none, if they are stupid enough to not only not be an expert but to think experts are untrustowrthy by virtue of being an expert, then they are too stupid to evaluate facts at that point... let them worry about the flat earth and unicorns they cant be helped.
> the public is stupid
ok. so you have no answer.