Why should people be forced to get the vaccine in order to protect others who choose not to get it?

So apparently a year of shutdown and masks was not enough to stop it.
What makes you think everyone getting vaccinated would be guaranteed to stop it?

It's already obvious people can still get the disease and spread it even though they've been vaccinated.

What about building up herd immunity in those who have not been vaccinated?

 

Claims not going to respond then responds......

 

Sean O’Leary, an immunization researcher at Children’s Hospital Colorado said that although relatively few children pass away from the virus, “for every one of these deaths, quite a few kids spend a long time in ICUs and suffer lingering effects.” Source​

 

do you think this was a "shut down?" did you know anyine who refused to mask?

no vaccine confers 100% immunity. yes , breakthrough occurs in vaccinated people.

and how about "herd immunity to the common cold? are we there yet ?

 

Of course then there is this:
Almost 400 reports of heart inflammation in children associated with vaccine

 

I'm sure that Mr O'Leary would also have to say the following:

Although relatively few children pass away from car accidents for every one of these deaths, quite a few kids spend a long time in ICUs and suffer lingering effects.

 

Well you do raise a very good point about the financial risk for an employer of not having a vaccine mandate for employees. But why would they be interested in saving people's lives, when the very lives which are at risk have the opportunity to get vaccinated?

 

I would question that if employers are subject to liability for not having a vaccine mandate, why shouldn't they also be subject to liability for requiring their employees to get the vaccine? Right now, due to a special federal law, people who suffered adverse effects from the vaccine are not able to sue the pharmaceutical company. So shouldn't they be allowed to sue the employer who required them to get it, if they suffer adverse reactions?

I just think we're being totally inconsistent here.

 

They absolutely SHOULD! I completely agree with you. Perhaps @Patricio Da Silva would agree too.

 

Wow. So you don't consider historic American slavery as 'forced?'

 

Let's take a look at the highligted, compound sentence.

The first clause, in point of fact, can stand alone as a question wholly not dependent on the second clause.

Just ask the question:

But why would they be interested in saving people's lives?

Because some have a sense of humanity towards their fellow man, maybe?

Just sayin'.

 

So you're talking about more than just private enterprise? Federal government too?

 

It's not a matter of should or shouldn't, there's this thing called reality, so let's take a look at the current situation.

No court is going to hold an employer, mandating vaccination, liable for any injury caused by a vaccine. Because of #1, below, primarily, and #2 is a related fact. I'm inclined to agree with #1.

1. Statistically speaking, the vaccines save lives, and work for the greater good far more than rare instances of SAEs,

2. Owing to the National Child Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, vaccine manufacturers are not held liable for vaccine injuries, and such injuries are directed to the Vaccine Court for litigation, and potential awards. Thus far, over $4 billion has been awarded due to vaccine injury. the awards are large, so dividing them into the total paid out, yields a number that puts the injuries still in the 'rare' column.

So, the point is, if they are not going to hold vaccine manufacturers liable for their vaccines, they sure as hell are not going to hold employers mandating them, now are they? What a court is mandated to do, in the event of an injury claim, is to direct their attorney to the Vaccine Injury court ( I forgot it's official name, but the attorney specializing in this kind of litigation will know).

Like it or hate it, that is the reality of the situation we live in.

I realize the NCVIA is controversial, but there are really only five big pharma firms that make most of the vaccines, and they practically held a gun to the head of Congress, and told them, basically, 'pass this act or we don't make vaccines'.
Congress passed the act, because they reasoned that it would be too risky to call their bluff for if they stopped making vaccines, children might die and suffer, and no congressperson wants soundbites used against them for such a thing.

 

When the hell did I say that the "vaccine shots are fatal?"

 

People are capable of saving their OWN lives by getting the vaccine!

 

ahh, I see your confusion, okay....

there it is, the mandate is not for those who would get it anyway, for they will get it anyway, it's for those who won't.

Kinda like a stop light at a major intersection, most will stop and look, but some won't. It's for those guys.

 

Then why has non-health related industry-employer mandates never even been discussed for any other vaccine in world history?

So vaccine manufacturers are not held liable for vaccine injuries, but somehow over $4 billion has been awarded due to vaccine injury? I'm guessing you mean that vaccine manufacturers are not held liable for vaccine injuries WITHOUT the claims first being directed to the 'Vaccine Court.'

It could certainly be argued that there has never been a vaccine anywhere NEAR as experimental as this one and as such it should be treated like no other vaccine. Don't you agree?

 

And why do we have to worry about them?

Yes, but for the innocent person killed by this action, what is the equivalent to the vaccine which could have saved their life?

 

Would you be against it?

 

Are you American?

 

Pass it on to a vaccinated or an unvaccinated person?

Most will definitely NOT go to the hospital, just like the rest of the population. Why do you ask this?

No. Why do you ask this?

Then your response to my question makes no sense. Your response: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-choose-not-to-get-it.590494/#post-1072816957

It seems that your reply should have been: People should NOT be forced to get the vaccine.

Is anyone proposing such a ridiculous law?

 

So you'd be okay with someone who was unable to get the vaccine being fired?

 

Do you actually use the term "pro-choice" to anything else other than abortion?

 

I didn't think that people cared enough about Australia to know what "au" likely refers to!

 

The principle of 'bodily autonomy' only matters when it SUITS them!