Vaccine mandates and institutionalized segregation

Vaccine mandates: a new form of ‘institutional segregation’

Increasingly, vaccination is no longer a matter of choice. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of workplaces and schools are instituting COVID-19 vaccine mandates, with more expected following formal FDA licensure of the vaccines. But mandating people and their children who have consciously chosen not to get vaccinated — a group that tends to be younger, less educated, Republican, non-white and uninsured — is a recipe for creating new and deeper fractures within our society, the kind of fractures we may profoundly regret in hindsight.
Let’s not sugarcoat it: This is a new form of institutionalized segregation. Yes, some unvaccinated adults may swallow this bitter pill and comply as a way of doing their part in making America safer. But many will see it — along with requirements that the unvaccinated wear masks or undergo regular COVID testing — as a thinly veiled attempt at public shaming. After all, if the goal is to maximize the interruption of spread, then surely all people should be masked irrespective of vaccination status.
Forced compliance will come with future consequences. The ensuing anger, resentment and loss of trust forms a ticking time bomb waiting to go off. Are we ready to add this mandate to the list of issues helping erode the fabric of our society?

These practices diverge substantially from the historical norm of equal opportunity. For all other required vaccines, religious and philosophical exemptions allow unvaccinated children to enjoy the same educational experience as the vaccinated. This is because exemptions reflect a social value that in the United States, there are valid reasons for refusing treatments or vaccines, and these reasons will be respected. Once exempt, there are no sanctions experienced in everyday life. But with COVID vaccine mandates, even those with exemptions are being sanctioned, sending another clear message: We really don’t care about your reasons.

Even though not everything here is true Joe still makes a good point.

Interesting viewpoint

An appeal for an objective, open, and transparent scientific debate about the origin of SARS-CoV-2

On July 5, 2021, a Correspondence was published in The Lancet called “Science, not speculation, is essential to determine how SARS-CoV-2 reached humans”. The letter recapitulates the arguments of an earlier letter (published in February, 2020) by the same authors, which claimed overwhelming support for the hypothesis that the novel coronavirus causing the COVID-19 pandemic originated in wildlife. The authors associated any alternative view with conspiracy theories by stating: “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin”. The statement has imparted a silencing effect on the wider scientific debate, including among science journalists. The 2021 letter did not repeat the proposition that scientists open to alternative hypotheses were conspiracy theorists, but did state: “We believe the strongest clue from new, credible, and peer-reviewed evidence in the scientific literature is that the virus evolved in nature, while suggestions of a laboratory leak source of the pandemic remain without scientifically validated evidence that directly supports it in peer-reviewed scientific journals”. In fact, this argument could literally be reversed. As will be shown below, there is no direct support for the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2, and a laboratory-related accident is plausible.

Read the rest of the article and make up your own mind on what you get from it.

I’ve read that the virus was discovered in bats in China over a decade ago and the sample was taken to Wuhan for study. I have learned that Fauci and others were doing gain of function research there and that those involved have made lots of money from whatever they had been doing for some time. 2/3 confirmed facts sure look like I don’t yet know enough about the coronavirus that has run rampant through the world and that some countries got different origins of it at the beginning. That’s pretty much all I know.

Good question

01382D6B-5061-421F-8846-38E64A2A1B15.jpeg

More selective masking.

Greenwald was on Jimmy recently and showed how the elite get to run around mask free whilst the help wore them. Obama’s shindig. Pelosi’s shindig and beauty treatments. SF mayor who said that she didn’t wear hers because she was having fun. Newsom and countless others have been seen violating the mandates that they put on the rest of us peons.

Share
up
18 users have voted.

Comments

meme misspells "coercion". That detracts from the impact.
A client came for an interview today. A dentist. For business reasons, I asked her what her office did for precaution, and that led to the jab discussion. She will not get it, will not require her employees to take it, as does my vet client/pal near here, as does my Dr. nearby.
I can't believe this mandate supplants Constitutional rights, but it might.

up
12 users have voted.
joe shikspack's picture

@on the cusp

"coercin" sounds like the patent name of a drug. i suppose i should leave it to the imagination as to what the drug does. Smile

up
11 users have voted.

@joe shikspack goes to wild places.

up
9 users have voted.

@on the cusp @on the cusp is interesting. But I think it's been more than a century since Scotus last had a major vaccine mandate question before them (1905 Jacobson) and voted in favor of the feds. Edit: That involved a state vaccine mandate, not a federal edict.

Biden currently has only a partial mandate in place. -- fed workers and companies w/more than 100 employees. He probably heard from advisors it is a dicey proposition politically and maybe legally, and decided just to do a partial. Let the state, local govt and smaller private entities do the rest.

But seems to me a good legal challenge at the fed or state level would want to show the trial court how these vaccines just aren't effective at stopping virus spread, and so their reason for being is in serious question. You can't really insist on a govt vaccine mandate where the main purpose is for reducing the rate of deaths/hosp