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/hospitalizations, which is how these vaccines have been advertised for most of the past 9 months since rollout. I don't think that a showing of marginal reduction in those areas would be nearly sufficient to overcome personal privacy/body autonomy objections.

There would be other challenges too, likely involving the questionable way these dubious vaccines were not given the usual long time for clinical study, and so by their very nature they tend to be more experimental drug products rather than true vaccines.

Hard to tell whether having a 6-3 conservative majority would help the anti-mandate forces, but there's that possibility.

up
12 users have voted.

@wokkamile to privacy.

up
11 users have voted.

personal story on social media the other day regarding a doctor who declined to see a regular patient suffering near-urgent symptoms upon learning he was unvaccinated.

Has anyone heard of doctor vaccine mandates wrt patients? First I"ve heard of it, no way to verify, haven't heard on any msm stories along these lines. It would be unethical, imo, for the doctor to refuse treatment on this basis.

up
8 users have voted.
joe shikspack's picture

@wokkamile

i could imagine a doc asking a patient exhibiting covid symptoms to go to a hospital emergency room where they have facilities to isolate a patient to prevent spread, rather than his/her office. perhaps i am being overly generous with my imagination, i dunno.

up
7 users have voted.

@joe shikspack didn't mention Covid symptoms, just a near-urgent situation with something. But perhaps the doctor sensed a Covid situation. First time I've heard of a doctor asking a patient about his vaccine status. I hope this doesn't become the norm.

Still, imo, the doctor from a purely ethical pov should not decline to see the patient. No 100% guarantees of safety in the medical profession. For sure, from a doctor's business pov, he has the right to not see patients. A matter of what he CAN do vs what he SHOULD do.

up
5 users have voted.
joe shikspack's picture

@wokkamile

i pretty much agree with you about the ethics, with the caveat that a doc should have the discretion to direct a patient to a specialist or facility that is better able to treat said patient. i wouldn't fault a doc for not wanting his office staff or patients in the waiting room to be exposed to a potentially nasty virus when it could be more safely handled in another setting.

i think that it would be reprehensible for a doc to refuse to see patients to punish them for not getting a covid vaccine.

up
9 users have voted.

@joe shikspack last point, the heart of the matter.

As to Covid safety, we know that being vaccinated doesn't prevent getting the virus and spreading it (and vaccinees might even be more likely to spread, per that VN hospital study reported a month or so ago). Far better, if the doctor has great concerns about Covid spread in his office, to require a very recent test which would probably turn off a number of his patients, or set up a quick 15-min test in his office, which doesn't seem practical.

up
8 users have voted.

@joe shikspack Both for skin problems. Headed to a 3rd next week. On the list you fill out, the question is, had a vax or not?
I have not been asked about flu vax before, or any other vax. Ever. I feel "tracked" and just a bit pre-diagnosed.

up
11 users have voted.

@on the cusp from a few yrs back that I saw a Flu Vax? question on one doctor's intake forms. I saw it, unremarkably, as just one of the many Qs a doctor asks to get as complete a picture of your medical situation as possible. I recall other Qs on the intake about other vaccines like Last Tetanus Shot; probably most of the others. Of course there was never a question of those other vaccine qs being a threshold question to permit you to become the doctor's patient.

up
8 users have voted.

@wokkamile But the Current vax is obviously added into the previous forms. I guess it bears on allergies and skin cancers. (snark)

up
6 users have voted.
janis b's picture

@joe shikspack

is to call Healthline or your doctor if you have concern that your symptoms are covid related. From there you would be directed about what to do. Understandably, doctors don't want patients with symptoms of the virus to visit their office where they see other patients. Covid is not the one and only medical condition that deserves attending to.

up
11 users have voted.
CB's picture

@janis b
It appears that asymptomatic and presymptomatic persons can transmit the disease according to the CDC.

The following is CDC guidance for non-healthcare workplaces:

"Given the risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from asymptomatic and presymptomatic persons with SARS-CoV-2 infection, use of antigen tests in asymptomatic and presymptomatic persons can be considered."

Maybe the rules s/b that EVERYONE get an antigen test before they visit the doctor or hospital?

up
6 users have voted.
janis b's picture

@CB

I understand this to be the current practice. I assume that after careful screening (by phone) of the individuals symptoms, appropriate advice would be given. Likely, it would be to be tested first.

Precautions in Healthcare Facilities

At all Alert Levels healthcare facilities and businesses will take precautions against the risk of COVID-19 transmission. These can include:

risk screening on arrival
contact tracing
providing services over the phone or online if you have any symptoms
asking you to wear a face covering while visiting the healthcare facility.
When accessing healthcare, you must take precautions against the spread of COVID-19, including:

physical distancing
wash or sanitise your hands
keep track of where you have been
wear a face covering, where possible

https://covid19.govt.nz/health-and-wellbeing/how-to-access-healthcare-an...

I guess time will tell how the current practice works here. I'll try to keep up to date.

up
5 users have voted.
edg's picture

@wokkamile

Every doctor my wife and I go to asks about vaccine status, requires masks, and observes special coronavirus protocols. I had rotator cuff surgery 2 weeks ago and had to bring my vaccine card along to get into the surgery center. My wife's rheumatologist begged her to get the 3rd vaccine shot just yesterday.

up
6 users have voted.

@edg I've been to 3 different doctors for different reasons (PCP, dermatologist and ophthalmologist) since the vaccine rollout, and not once have been asked about my vaccine status. I have cataract surgery coming up mid-Oct and a pre-op sheet of important things to do before that, but nowhere on that list is there anything about having to produce a vaccine card before entering the surgery room. It would moreover be a bit absurd as I will effectively be masked during the surgery (they put a light cloth over my face), and the surgery lasts only about 15 min.

And with some studies out there (VN controlled hospital study) suggesting vaccinated actually carry 241x more viral load than unvaccinated, the HCWs will be much safer with this unvaxxed patient.

up
9 users have voted.

@edg unvaccinated? Say, 1 jab, or 2 jabs but not plus 2 weeks?
Would you or your wife been denied care?
I wonder if drs. are demanding the vaccinations as a prerequisite around the country. I am wondering about the legal consequences. It looms large, down the road.
If drs. can do it, then ers and hospitals can.
If so, shamans will get a lot of business.

up
6 users have voted.
edg's picture

Google Image Search for united states vaccine protests

Protests.jpg

Source: Photos of vaccine protesters enduring rampant institutionalized segregation

up
4 users have voted.

@edg @edg engage in organized protests on the vaccines, but it's still true that the Black and Latino communities are more resistant to getting these jabs compared to Whites, so a sort of quiet unseen protest. https://abcnews.go.com/Health/us-blacks-latinos-remain-covid-19-vaccine-...

up
10 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@edg

Yeah why bother to?

up
9 users have voted.

It is not until the tide goes out that you discover who has been swimming naked.

@edg has nothing to do with race.

up
4 users have voted.
TheOtherMaven's picture

@on the cusp

with every other form of segregation that has ever been practiced in this benighted country (class, race, income, education, etc.)

Basically, the Haves get to do as they please, and the Have-Nots are supposed to knuckle under and OBEY.

up
6 users have voted.

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

@TheOtherMaven My comment was to Edg, in that he made it all about race.

up
3 users have voted.
CB's picture

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...
...
Although considerable evidence supports the natural origins of other outbreaks (eg, Nipah, MERS, and the 2002–04 SARS outbreak) direct evidence for a natural origin for SARS-CoV-2 is missing. After 19 months of investigations, the proximal progenitor of SARS-CoV-2 is still lacking. Neither the host pathway from bats to humans, nor the geographical route from Yunnan (where the viruses most closely related to SARS-CoV-2 have been sampled) to Wuhan (where the pandemic emerged) have been identified...
...
A research-related origin is plausible. Two questions need to be addressed: virus evolution and introduction into the human population. Since July, 2020, several peer-reviewed scientific papers have discussed the likelihood of a research-related origin of the virus. Some unusual features of the SARS-CoV-2 genome sequence suggest that they may have resulted from genetic engineering, an approach widely used in some virology labs. Alternatively, adaptation to humans might result from undirected laboratory selection during serial passage in cell cultures or laboratory animals, including humanised mice. Mice genetically modified to display the human receptor for entry of SARS-CoV-2 (ACE2) were used in research projects funded before the pandemic, to test the infectivity of different virus strains. Laboratory research also includes more targeted approaches such as gain-of-function experiments relying on chimeric viruses to test their potential to cross species barriers.
...
Overwhelming evidence for either a zoonotic or research-related origin is lacking: the jury is still out...
...
An evidence-based, independent, and prejudice-free evaluation will require an international consultation of high-level experts with no conflicts of interest, from various disciplines and countries; the mandate will be to establish the different scenarios, and the associated hypotheses, and then to propose protocols, methods, and required data in order to elucidate the question of SARS-CoV-2's origin...

Scientific journals should open their columns to in-depth analyses of all hypotheses. As scientists, we need to evaluate all hypotheses on a rational basis, and to weigh their likelihood based on facts and evidence, devoid of speculation concerning possible political impacts.